RESUMO
AIM: The aim of this study was to evaluate the long-term cost-effectiveness of sacral neuromodulation in the treatment of severe faecal incontinence as compared with symptomatic management. METHODS: In the public health field, a micro-costing evaluation method was conducted from the perspectives of the health system and the society. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was used as a decision index, and we considered various scenarios to evaluate the impact of the cost of symptomatic management and percutaneous nerve evaluation success rate in its calculation. Clinical data were retrieved from a consecutive cohort of 93 patients with severe faecal incontinence undergoing sacral neuromodulation after a failure of conservative (pharmacological and biofeedback) and/or surgical (sphincteroplasty) first-line treatments were considered. RESULTS: The long-term incremental cost-effectiveness ratio comparing sacral neuromodulation versus symptomatic management was 14347/QALY and 28523/QALY from the societal and health service provider's perspectives, respectively. If the definitive pulse generator implant success rate was 100%, incremental cost-effectiveness would correspond to 6831/QALY and 16761/QALY, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Sacral neuromodulation may be considered a cost-effective technique in the long-term treatment of severe faecal incontinence from the societal and health care sector perspectives. Improving patient selection and determining the predictive outcome factors for successful sacral neuromodulation in the treatment of faecal incontinence would improve cost-effectiveness.
Assuntos
Terapia por Estimulação Elétrica , Incontinência Fecal , Humanos , Terapia por Estimulação Elétrica/métodos , Análise de Custo-Efetividade , Incontinência Fecal/terapia , Análise Custo-Benefício , Próteses e Implantes , Resultado do Tratamento , Plexo LombossacralRESUMO
INTRODUCTION: Find out the long-term economic cost associated with the treatment of severe fecal incontinence by SNS versus symptomatic conservative treatment and definitive colostomy. METHODS: Detailed descriptive study of the costs of the healthcare process (interventions, consultations, devices, complementary tests, hospitalization, etc.) of 3 treatment alternatives for fecal incontinence using analytical accounting tools of the Health Service based on clinical activity data. The frequency of use of health resources or the quantity of products dispensed in pharmacies (medication, diapers, ostomy material, etc.) was estimated in each case. Costs derived from adverse situations were included. Patients with severe fecal incontinence, defined by a score greater than 9 on the Wexner severity scale, in whom first-line treatments had failed, were included. Data from a consecutive cohort of 93 patients who underwent an SNS between 2002 and 2016 were used; patients who underwent definitive colostomy (n=2); parastomal hernia (n=3); and colostomy stenosis (n=1). RESULTS: The mean cumulative cost in 10 years per patient in each alternative was: 10,972.9 symptomatic treatment (62% diapers); 17,351.57 SNS (95.83% interventions; 81.6% devices); 25,858.54 definitive colostomy (70.4% ostomy material and accessories). CONCLUSIONS: Management of severe fecal incontinence implies a great burden in economic terms. The colostomy is the alternative that generates the most direct cost, followed by SNS and symptomatic treatment.
Assuntos
Incontinência Fecal , Estudos de Coortes , Colostomia , Incontinência Fecal/terapia , Estresse Financeiro , HumanosRESUMO
INTRODUCTION: Find out the long-term economic cost associated with the treatment of severe fecal incontinence by SNS versus symptomatic conservative treatment and definitive colostomy. METHODS: Detailed descriptive study of the costs of the healthcare process (interventions, consultations, devices, complementary tests, hospitalization, etc.) of 3 treatment alternatives for fecal incontinence using analytical accounting tools of the Health Service based on clinical activity data. The frequency of use of health resources or the quantity of products dispensed in pharmacies (medication, diapers, ostomy material, etc.) was estimated in each case. Costs derived from adverse situations were included. Patients with severe fecal incontinence, defined by a score greater than 9 on the Wexner severity scale, in whom first-line treatments had failed, were included. Data from a consecutive cohort of 93 patients who underwent an SNS between 2002 and 2016 were used; patients who underwent definitive colostomy (n=2); parastomal hernia (n=3), and colostomy stenosis (n=1). RESULTS: The mean cumulative cost in 10 years per patient in each alternative was: 10,972.9 symptomatic treatment (62% diapers); 17,351.57 SNS (95.83% interventions; 81.6% devices); 25,858.54 definitive colostomy (70.4% ostomy material and accessories). CONCLUSIONS: Management of severe fecal incontinence implies a great burden in economic terms. The colostomy is the alternative that generates the most direct cost, followed by SNS and symptomatic treatment.