| 1. |
- Park, Jennifer, et al.
(author)
-
Cost analysis in a randomized trial of early closure of a temporary ileostomy after rectal resection for cancer (EASY trial).
- 2020
-
In: Surgical endoscopy. - : Springer Science and Business Media LLC. - 1432-2218 .- 0930-2794. ; 34:1, s. 69-76
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- Hospital costs associated with the treatment of rectal cancer are considerable and the formation of a temporary stoma accounts for additional costs. Results from the EASY trial showed that early closure of a temporary ileostomy was associated with significantly fewer postoperative complications but no difference in health-related quality of life up to 12months after rectal resection. The aim of the present study was to perform a cost analysis within the framework of the EASY trial.Early closure (8-13days) of a temporary stoma was compared to late closure (>12weeks) in the randomized controlled trial EASY (NCT01287637). The study period and follow-up was 12months after rectal resection. Inclusion of participants was made after index surgery. Exclusion criteria were diabetes mellitus, steroid treatment, signs of postoperative complications or anastomotic leakage. Clinical effectiveness and resource use were derived from the trial and unit costs from Swedish sources. Costs were calculated for the year 2016 and analysed from the perspective of the healthcare sector.Fifty-five patients underwent early closure, and 57 late closure in eight Swedish and Danish hospitals between 2011 and 2014. The difference in mean cost per patient was 4060 US dollar (95% confidence interval 1121; 6999, p value<0.01) in favour of early closure. A sensitivity analysis, taking protocol-driven examinations into account, resulted in an overall difference in mean cost per patient of $3608, in favour of early closure (95% confidence interval 668; 6549, p value 0.02). The predominant cost factors were reoperations, readmissions and endoscopic examinations.The significant cost reduction in this study, together with results of safety and efficacy from the randomized controlled trial, supports the routine use of early closure of a temporary ileostomy after rectal resection for cancer in selected patients without signs of anastomotic leakage.Registered at clinicaltrials.gov, clinical trials identifier NCT01287637.
|
|
| 2. |
- Forsmark, A., et al.
(author)
-
Health Economic Analysis of Open and Robot-assisted Laparoscopic Surgery for Prostate Cancer Within the Prospective Multicentre LAPPRO Trial
- 2018
-
In: European Urology. - : Elsevier BV. - 0302-2838 .- 1873-7560. ; 74:6, s. 816-824
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- Background: The rapid adoption of robot-assisted laparoscopy in radical prostatectomy has preceded data regarding associated costs. Qualitative evidence regarding cost outcomes is lacking. Objective: This study assessed how costs were affected by robot-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy (RALP) compared with open surgery. Design, setting, and participants: Cost analysis was based on the dataset of the LAPPRO (Laparoscopic Prostatectomy Robot Open) clinical trial, which is a prospective controlled, nonrandomised trial of patients who underwent prostatectomy at 14 centres in Sweden between September 2008 and November 2011. Currently, data are available from a follow-up period of 24 mo. Intervention: In the LAPPRO trial, RALP was compared with radical retropubic prostatectomy (RRP). Outcome measurements and statistical analysis: Costs per surgical technique were assessed based on resource variable data from the LAPPRO database. The calculation of average costs was based on mean values; Swedish currency was converted to purchasing power parity US dollar (PPP$). All tests were two-tailed and conducted at alpha = 0.05 significance level. Results and limitations: The cost analysis comprised 2638 men. Based on the LAPPRO trial data, RALP was associated with an increased cost/procedure of PPP$ 3837 (95% confidence interval: 2747-4928) compared with RRP. The result was sensitive to variations in caseload. Main drivers of overall cost were robotic system cost, operation time, length of stay, and sick leave. Limitations of the study include the uneven distribution between RALP and RRP regarding procedures in public/for-profit hospitals and surgeon/centre procedural volume. Conclusions: Based on the LAPPRO trial data, this study showed that RALP was associated with an increased cost compared with RRP in Swedish health care. There are many factors influencing the costs, making the absolute result dependent on the specific setting. However, by identifying the main cost drivers and/or most influential parameters, the study provides support for informed decisions and predictions. Patient summary: In this study, we looked at the cost outcome when performing prostatectomies by robot-assisted laparoscopic technique compared with open surgery in Sweden. We found that the robot-assisted procedure was associated with a higher mean cost. (C) 2018 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V. on behalf of European Association of Urology.
|
|
| 3. |
- Gehrman, Jacob, 1986, et al.
(author)
-
Cost-effectiveness analysis of laparoscopic and open surgery in routine Swedish care for colorectal cancer
- 2020
-
In: Surgical Endoscopy. - : Springer Science and Business Media LLC. - 0930-2794 .- 1432-2218. ; 24:4403-4412
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- Background: Laparoscopic surgery for colorectal cancer has been shown in clinical trials to be effective regarding short-term outcomes and oncologically safe. Health economic analyses have been performed early in the learning curve when adoption of laparoscopic surgery was not extensive. This cost-effectiveness analysis evaluates laparoscopic versus open colorectal cancer surgery in Swedish routine care. Methods: In this national retrospective cohort study, data were retrieved from the Swedish ColoRectal Cancer Registry. Clinical effectiveness, resource use and unit costs were derived from this and other sources with nationwide coverage. The study period was 2013 and 2014 with 1 year follow-up. Exclusion criterion comprised cT4-tumors. Clinical effectiveness was estimated in a composite endpoint of all-cause resource-consuming events in inpatient care, readmissions and deaths up to 90days postoperatively. Up to 1 year, events predefined as related to the primary surgery were included. Costs included resource-consuming events, readmissions and sick leave and were estimated for both the society and healthcare. Multivariable regression analyses were used to adjust for differences in baseline characteristics between the groups. Results: After exclusion of cT4 tumors, the cohort included 7707 patients who underwent colorectal cancer surgery: 6060 patients in the open surgery group and 1647 patients in the laparoscopic group. The mean adjusted difference in clinical effectiveness between laparoscopic and open colorectal cancer surgery was 0.23 events (95% CI 0.12 to 0.33). Mean adjusted differences in costs (open minus laparoscopic surgery) were $4504 (95% CI 2257 to 6799) and $4480 (95% CI 2739 to 6203) for the societal and the healthcare perspective respectively. In both categories, resource consuming events in inpatient care were the main driver of the results. Conclusion: In a national cohort, laparoscopic colorectal cancer surgery was associated with both superior outcomes for clinical effectiveness and cost versus open surgery. © 2019, The Author(s).
|
|
| 4. |
|
|
| 5. |
- Kohl, A., et al.
(author)
-
Two-year results of the randomized clinical trial DILALA comparing laparoscopic lavage with resection as treatment for perforated diverticulitis
- 2018
-
In: British Journal of Surgery. - : Oxford University Press (OUP). - 0007-1323 .- 1365-2168. ; 105:9, s. 1128-1134
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- BackgroundTraditionally, perforated diverticulitis with purulent peritonitis was treated with resection and colostomy (Hartmann's procedure), with inherent complications and risk of a permanent stoma. The DILALA (DIverticulitis - LAparoscopic LAvage versus resection (Hartmann's procedure) for acute diverticulitis with peritonitis) and other randomized trials found laparoscopic lavage to be a feasible and safe alternative. The medium-term follow-up results of DILALA are reported here. MethodsPatients were randomized during surgery after being diagnosed with Hinchey grade III perforated diverticulitis at diagnostic laparoscopy. The primary outcome was the proportion of patients with one or more secondary operations from 0 to 24 months after the index procedure in the laparoscopic lavage versus Hartmann's procedure groups. The trial was registered as ISRCTN82208287. ResultsForty-three patients were randomized to laparoscopic lavage and 40 to Hartmann's procedure. Patients in the lavage group had a 45 per cent reduced risk of undergoing one or more operations within 24 months (relative risk 055, 95 per cent c.i. 036 to 084; P = 0012) and had fewer operations (ratio 051, 95 per cent c.i. 031 to 087; P = 0024) compared with those in the Hartmann's group. No difference was found in mean number of readmissions (137 versus 150; P = 0221) or mortality between patients randomized to laparoscopic lavage or Hartmann's procedure. Three patients in the lavage group and nine in the Hartmann's group had a colostomy at 24 months. ConclusionLaparoscopic lavage is a better option for perforated diverticulitis with purulent peritonitis than open resection and colostomy.
|
|
