Long-term cost-effectiveness analysis of sacral neuromodulation in the treatment of severe faecal incontinence.

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.

Oncological results according to type of resection for rectal cancer.

OBJECTIVE: This multicentre observational study aimed to compare outcomes of anterior resection (AR) and abdominal perineal resection (APR) in patients treated for rectal cancer. METHODS: Between March 2006 and March 2009 a cohort of 1,598 patients diagnosed with low and mid rectal cancer were operated on in the first 38 hospitals included in the Spanish Rectal Cancer Project. In 1,343 patients the procedure was considered curative. Clinical and outcome results were analysed in relation to the type of surgery performed. All patients were included in the analysis of clinical results. The analysis of outcomes was performed only on patients treated by a curative procedure. RESULTS: Of the 1,598 patients, 1,139 (71.3%) underwent an AR and 459 (28.7%) an APR. In 1,343 patients the procedure was performed with curative intent; from these 973 (72.4%) had an AR and 370 (27.6%) an APR. There were no differences between AR and APR in mortality (29 vs. 18 patients; P=.141). After a median follow up of 60.0 [49.0-60.0] months there were no differences in local recurrence (HR 1.68 [0.87-3.23]; P=.12), metastases (HR 1.31 [0.98-1.76]; P=.064). However, overall survival was worse after APR (HR 1.37 [1.00-1.86]; P=.048). CONCLUSION: This study did not identify abdominoperineal excision as a determinant of local recurrence or metastases. However, patients treated by this operation have a decreased overall survival.

[Analysis of the quality of surgical treatment of colorectal cancer, in 2008. A national study]. / Análisis de la calidad asistencial del tratamiento quirúrgico del cáncer colorrectal en 2008. Estudio de ámbito nacional.

OBJECTIVE: A national study conducted for the Spanish Association of Surgeons with the aim of analysing the surgical treatment of colorectal cancer (CRC) in Spain and to compare it with scientific literature. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A multicentre, descriptive, prospective and longitudinal study of patients with CRC who were treated by elective surgery. A total of 50 hospitals in 15 Autonomous Regions took part, with 496 treated cases in 2008. A total of 88 variables were collected. RESULTS: The median age was 72 years, increase in ASA III patients; correct preoperative studies, 4% with no staging in the rectum. There was a tendency not to use the colon cleansing or to do it only one day. The percentage of complications is within the ranges in the literature, with the exception of surgical wound infections (19%). Mean of resected lymph nodes: 13.2; 4.3% no mesorectal resection. Mechanical anastomosis: 80.8%, 65.9% of the operations performed by a colorectal surgeon. Preoperative radiotherapy in 43.5% of rectal cancers. Chemotherapy: 32.9%. Laparoscopy: 35.1% of cases, conversion rate 13.8%. Use of antibiotics: 37.1%, blood transfusion: 20.6% and parenteral nutrition: 26.5%. CONCLUSIONS: Surgical treatment of CRC in Spain has a level of quality and peri-operative results similar to the rest of Europe. Compared to previous studies, it was observed that there were advances in preparation of the patient, preoperative studies, imaging techniques, and improvements in surgical techniques with adoption of mesorectal excision, appropriate lymphadenectomies and preservation of sphincters. There are areas for improvement, such as a reduction in surgical wound infections, increase use of protective stoma, appropriate use of antibiotics, parenteral nutrition or neoadjuvants and complete colonoscopies.

[Comparison of colostomies and ileostomies as diverting stomas after low anterior resection]. / Comparación de colostomías e ileostomías como estomas derivativos tras resección anterior baja.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of the present study was to evaluate two procedures (transverse colostomy and ileostomy) as diverting stomas after low anterior resection to determine whether one is superior to the other. MATERIAL AND METHOD: A literature review was performed to compare both stomas from construction to closure. RESULTS: Distinguishing between the complications specific to stoma construction from those caused by anterior resection is difficult. While the stoma is in place, transverse colostomy seems to be better tolerated. Colostomy closure seems to have more septic complications, although the real frequency of bowel obstruction after ileostomy closure remains to be determined. CONCLUSIONS: Given the characteristics of previous studies, the superiority of one diverting stoma over the other cannot be established. Ileostomy seems better tolerated by patients and is associated with a lower complication rate after closure (bowel obstruction remains to be evaluated). Randomized prospective studies with a larger number of patients are required to determine which of these procedures is superior.