Laparoscopic mesh removal for otherwise intractable inguinal pain following endoscopic hernia repair is feasible, safe and may be effective in selected patients.

BACKGROUND: Laparoscopic inguinal hernia repair is preferred over an open technique because of reduced recovery time, favorable cost effectiveness, and less chronic postoperative inguinal pain. Nevertheless, some patients develop a nociceptive inguinal pain syndrome possibly related to the presence of the mesh. This is the first study describing feasibility, safety, and effectiveness of laparoscopic mesh removal in patients with chronic pain after endoscopic hernia repair. METHODS: Pre- and intraoperative data of chronic pain patients scheduled for endoscopic mesh removal were prospectively collected by a standard evaluation form. Long-term efficacy was determined using pain scores, patient satisfaction, and quality of life questionnaire. A Wilcoxon signed-rank test was used to determine significant differences between pre- and postoperative pain scores. RESULTS: Fourteen patients were studied (11 males, median 52 years). Median operating time was 103 min. Conversion to open surgery was not required. One intraoperatively recognized bladder laceration was laparoscopically closed. Otherwise, no intraoperative or postoperative complications occurred. Eight months postoperatively (median), pain scores had dropped from eight to four (p < 0.01). Satisfaction was good or excellent in ten patients. A recurrent hernia developed in two patients requiring an open mesh repair in one. CONCLUSIONS: Laparoscopic mesh removal is a feasible, safe, and effective option in selected patients with chronic groin pain after endoscopic hernia repair in the hands of an experienced surgeon.

Improved Adherence to a Stepped-care Model Reduces Costs of Intermittent Claudication Treatment in The Netherlands.

OBJECTIVE/BACKGROUND: A previous budget impact analysis regarding a supervised exercise therapy (SET) first treatment strategy (stepped care model [SCM]) for Dutch patients with intermittent claudication (IC) showed a low referral rate in 2009, despite solid evidence of the effectiveness of SET programs. Recently, several campaigns have stimulated stakeholders in the field to adopt a SET first strategy in patients with IC. The aim of the present study was to reassess SCM adherence after a 2 year period. METHODS: IC related invoices of patients in 2011 were obtained from a large Dutch health insurance company (3.5 million persons). Patients were divided into two groups based on their initial treatment. A SET group had started SET between 12 months before (initiated by general practitioner) and 3 months after (initiated by vascular surgeon) presentation at a vascular surgery outpatient clinic. An intervention (INT) group was treated by revascularisation within 3 months of outpatient presentation. Costs of IC treatment in this 2011 cohort were compared with the earlier 2009 cohort. RESULTS: IC related invoices of 4135 patients were available. In 2011, the initial treatment was SET in 56% (2009: 34%; +22% [p < .001]) and INT in 44% (2009: 66%; -22% [p < .001]) of the IC population. Additional revascularisation was performed in 19% of patients in the SET group (2009: 6%; +13% [p < .001]) and also in 19% of patients in the INT group (2009: 35%; -16% [p < .001]). Later on, 29% of patients in the INT group were referred for SET (2009: 10%; +19% [p < .001]). Average costs of IC treatment per patient in 2011 were 6% lower than in 2009 (€6885 vs. €7300; p = .020). CONCLUSION: A 22% increase in adherence to SET as a first treatment strategy in Dutch patients with IC was attained between 2009 and 2011. This shift suggests successful SCM implementation resulting in lower costs for the national healthcare system.

Significant savings with a stepped care model for treatment of patients with intermittent claudication.

OBJECTIVES: International guidelines recommend supervised exercise therapy (SET) as primary treatment for intermittent claudication (IC). The aim of this study was to calculate treatment costs in patients with IC and to estimate nationwide annual savings if a stepped care model (SCM, primary SET treatment followed by revascularization in case of SET failure) was followed. METHODS: Invoice data of all patients with IC in 2009 were obtained from a Dutch health insurance company (3.4 million members). Patients were divided into three groups based on initial treatment after diagnosis (t0). The SET group received SET initiated at any time between 12 months before and up to 3 months after t0. The intervention group (INT) underwent endovascular or open revascularization between t0 and t+3 months. The third group (REST) received neither SET nor any intervention. All peripheral arterial disease related invoices were recorded during 2 years and average costs per patient were calculated. Savings following use of a SCM were calculated for three scenarios. RESULTS: Data on 4954 patients were analyzed. Initial treatment was SET (n = 701, 14.1%), INT (n = 1363, 27.5%), or REST (n = 2890, 58.3%). Within 2 years from t0, invasive revascularization in the SET group was performed in 45 patients (6.4%). Additional interventions (primary at other location and/or re-interventions) were performed in 480 INT patients (35.2%). Some 431 REST patients received additional SET (n = 299, 10.3%) or an intervention (n = 132, 4.5%). Mean total IC related costs per patient were €2,191, €9851 and €824 for SET, INT, and REST, respectively. Based on a hypothetical worst, moderate, and best case scenario, some 3.8, 20.6, or 33.0 million euros would have been saved per annum if SCM was implemented in the Dutch healthcare system. CONCLUSION: Implementation of a SCM treatment for patients with IC may lead to significant savings of health care resources.