RESUMO
Background: Total mesorectal excision has been the gold standard for the operative management of rectal cancer. The most frequently used minimally invasive techniques for surgical resection of rectal cancer are laparoscopic, robot-assisted, and transanal total mesorectal excision. As studies comparing the costs of the techniques are lacking, this study aims to provide a cost overview. Method: This retrospective cohort study included patients who underwent total mesorectal resection between 2015 and 2017 at 11 dedicated centers, which completed the learning curve of the specific technique. The primary outcome was total in-hospital costs of each technique up to 30 days after surgery including all major surgical cost drivers, while taking into account different team approaches in the transanal approach. Secondary outcomes were hospitalization and complication rates. Statistical analysis was performed using multivariable linear regression analysis. Results: In total, 949 patients were included, consisting of 446 laparoscopic (47%), 306 (32%) robot-assisted, and 197 (21%) transanal total mesorectal excisions. Total costs were significantly higher for transanal and robot-assisted techniques compared to the laparoscopic technique, with median (interquartile range) for laparoscopic, robot-assisted, and transanal at 10,556 (8,642;13,829), 12,918 (11,196;16,223), and 13,052 (11,330;16,358), respectively (P < 0.001). Also, the one-team transanal approach showed significant higher operation time and higher costs compared to the two-team approach. Length of stay and postoperative complications did not differ between groups. Conclusion: Transanal and robot-assisted approaches show higher costs during 30-day follow-up compared to laparoscopy with comparable short-term clinical outcomes. Two-team transanal approach is associated with lower total costs compared to the transanal one-team approach.
RESUMO
PURPOSE: The aim of this study is to assess cost-effectiveness of general practitioner (GP) versus surgeon-led colon cancer survivorship care from a societal perspective. METHODS: We performed an economic evaluation alongside the I CARE study, which included 303 cancer patients (stages I-III) who were randomised to survivorship care by a GP or surgeon. Questionnaires were administered at baseline, 3-, 6-, 12-, 24- and 36-months. Costs included healthcare costs (measured by iMTA MCQ) and lost productivity costs (SF-HLQ). Disease-specific quality of life (QoL) was measured using EORTC QLQ-C30 summary score and general QoL using EQ-5D-3L quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). Missing data were imputed. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were calculated to relate costs to effects on QoL. Statistical uncertainty was estimated using bootstrapping. RESULTS: Total societal costs of GP-led care were significantly lower compared to surgeon-led care (mean difference of - 3895; 95% CI - 6113; - 1712). Lost productivity was the main contributor to the difference in societal costs (- 3305; 95% CI - 5028; - 1739). The difference in QLQ-C30 summary score over time between groups was 1.33 (95% CI - 0.049; 3.15). The ICER for QLQ-C30 was - 2073, indicating that GP-led care is dominant over surgeon-led care. The difference in QALYs was - 0.021 (95% CI - 0.083; 0.040) resulting in an ICER of 129,164. CONCLUSIONS: GP-led care is likely to be cost-effective for disease-specific QoL, but not for general QoL. IMPLICATIONS FOR CANCER SURVIVORS: With a growing number of cancer survivors, GP-led survivorship care could help to alleviate some of the burden on more expensive secondary healthcare services.
RESUMO
BACKGROUND: Annually approximately 100.000 patients undergo a laparotomy in the Netherlands. About 15,000 of these patients will develop an incisional hernia. Both open and laparoscopic surgical repair have been proven to be safe. However, the most effective treatment of incisional hernias remains unclear. This study, the 'INCH-trial', comparing cost-effectiveness of open and laparoscopic incisional hernia repair, is therefore needed. METHODS/DESIGN: A randomized multi-center clinical trial comparing cost-effectiveness of open and laparoscopic repair of incisional hernias. Patients with a symptomatic incisional hernia, eligible for laparoscopic and open incisional hernia repair. Only surgeons, experienced in both open and laparoscopic incisional hernia repair, will participate in the INCH trial. During incisional hernia repair, a mesh is placed under or on top of the fascia, with a minimal overlap of 5 cm. Primary endpoint is length of hospital stay after an incisional hernia repair. Secondary endpoints are time to full recovery within three months after index surgery, post-operative complications, recurrences, mortality and quality of life.Our hypothesis is that laparoscopic incisional hernia repair comes with a significant shorter hospital stay compared to open incisional hernia repair. A difference of two days is considered significant. One-hunderd-and-thirty-five patients are enrolled in each treatment arm. The economic evaluation will be performed from a societal perspective. Primary outcomes are costs per patient related to time-to-recovery and quality of life.The main goal of the trial is to establish whether laparoscopic incisional hernia repair is superior to conventional open incisional hernia repair in terms of cost-effectiveness. This is measured through length of hospital stay and quality of life. Secondary endpoints are re-operation rate due to post-operative complications or recurrences, mortality and quality of life. DISCUSSION: The difference in time to full recovery between the two treatment strategies is thought to be in favor of laparoscopic incisional hernia repair. Laparoscopic incisional hernia repair is therefore expected to be a more cost-effective approach. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Netherlands Trial register: NTR2808.
