Economic value of diastasis repair with the use of mesh compared to no intervention in Italy.

AIM: Rectus abdominal diastasis (RAD) can cause mainly incontinence and lower-back pain. Despite its high incidence, there is no consensus regarding surgical indication. We aimed at comparing RAD repair (minimally invasive technique with mesh implant) with no treatment (standard of care - SOC) through cost-effectiveness and budget impact analyses from both National Healthcare Service (NHS) and societal perspectives in Italy. METHODS: A model was developed including social costs and productivity losses derived by the online administration of a socio-economic questionnaire, including the EuroQol for the assessment of quality of life. Costs for the NHS were based on reimbursement tariffs. RESULTS: Over a lifetime horizon, estimated costs were 64,115€ for SOC and 46,541€ for RAD repair in the societal perspective; QALYs were 19.55 and 25.75 for the two groups, respectively. Considering the NHS perspective, RAD repair showed an additional cost per patient of 5,104€ compared to SOC, leading to an ICUR of 824€. RAD repair may be either cost-saving or cost-effective compared to SOC depending on the perspective considered. Considering a current scenario of 100% SOC, an increased diffusion of RAD repair from 2 to 10% in the next 5 years would lead to an incremental cost of 184,147,624€ for the whole society (87% borne by the NHS) and to incremental 16,155 QALYs. CONCLUSION: In light of the lack of economic evaluations for minimally invasive RAD repair, the present study provides relevant clinical and economic evidence to help improving the decision-making process and allocating scarce resources between competing ends.

High-energy devices in different surgical settings: lessons learnt from a full health technology assessment report developed by SICE (Società Italiana di Chirurgia Endoscopica).

BACKGROUND: The present paper aims at evaluating the potential benefits of high-energy devices (HEDs) in the Italian surgical practice, defining the comparative efficacy and safety profiles, as well as the potential economic and organizational advantages for hospitals and patients, with respect to standard monopolar or bipolar devices. METHODS: A Health Technology Assessment was conducted in 2021 assuming the hospital perspective, comparing HEDs and standard monopolar/bipolar devices, within eleven surgical settings: appendectomy, hepatic resections, colorectal resections, cholecystectomy, splenectomy, hemorrhoidectomy, thyroidectomy, esophago-gastrectomy, breast surgery, adrenalectomy, and pancreatectomy. The nine EUnetHTA Core Model dimensions were deployed considering a multi-methods approach. Both qualitative and quantitative methods were used: (1) a systematic literature review for the definition of the comparative efficacy and safety data; (2) administration of qualitative questionnaires, completed by 23 healthcare professionals (according to 7-item Likert scale, ranging from - 3 to + 3); and (3) health-economics tools, useful for the economic evaluation of the clinical pathway and budget impact analysis, and for the definition of the organizational and accessibility advantages, in terms of time or procedures' savings. RESULTS: The literature declared a decrease in operating time and length of stay in using HEDs in most surgical settings. While HEDs would lead to a marginal investment for the conduction of 178,619 surgeries on annual basis, their routinely implementation would generate significant organizational savings. A decrease equal to - 5.25/-9.02% of operating room time and to - 5.03/-30.73% of length of stay emerged. An advantage in accessibility to surgery could be hypothesized in a 9% of increase, due to the gaining in operatory slots. Professionals' perceptions crystallized and confirmed literature evidence, declaring a better safety and effectiveness profile. An improvement in both patients and caregivers' quality-of-life emerged. CONCLUSIONS: The results have demonstrated the strategic relevance related to HEDs introduction, their economic sustainability, and feasibility, as well as the potentialities in process improvement.

Why laparoscopists may opt for three-dimensional view: a summary of the full HTA report on 3D versus 2D laparoscopy by S.I.C.E. (Società Italiana di Chirurgia Endoscopica e Nuove Tecnologie).

BACKGROUND: Three-dimensional view in laparoscopic general, gynaecologic and urologic surgery is an efficient, safe and sustainable innovation. The present paper is an extract taken from a full health technology assessment report on three-dimensional vision technology compared with standard two-dimensional laparoscopic systems. METHODS: A health technology assessment approach was implemented in order to investigate all the economic, social, ethical and organisational implications related to the adoption of the innovative three-dimensional view. With the support of a multi-disciplinary team, composed of eight experts working in Italian hospitals and Universities, qualitative and quantitative data were collected, by means of literature evidence, validated questionnaire and self-reported interviews, applying a final MCDA quantitative approach, and considering the dimensions resulting from the EUnetHTA Core Model. RESULTS: From systematic search of literature, we retrieved the following studies: 9 on general surgery, 35 on gynaecology and urology, both concerning clinical setting. Considering simulated setting we included: 8 studies regarding pitfalls and drawbacks, 44 on teaching, 12 on surgeons' confidence and comfort and 34 on surgeons' performances. Three-dimensional laparoscopy was shown to have advantages for both the patients and the surgeons, and is confirmed to be a safe, efficacious and sustainable vision technology. CONCLUSIONS: The objective of the present paper, under the patronage of Italian Society of Endoscopic Surgery, was achieved in that there has now been produced a scientific report, based on a HTA approach, that may be placed in the hands of surgeons and used to support the decision-making process of the health providers.