Editor's Choice - Short Term Cost Effectiveness of Radiofrequency Ablation and High Ligation and Stripping for Great Saphenous Vein Incompetence.

OBJECTIVE: Superficial venous incompetence (SVI) is a common disease that causes significant quality of life (QoL) impairment. There is a need for more health economic evaluations of SVI treatment. The aim of this study was to perform a cost effectiveness analysis in patients with great saphenous vein (GSV) incompetence comparing radiofrequency ablation (RFA), high ligation and stripping (HL/S), and no treatment or conservative treatment with one year follow up. METHODS: Randomised controlled trial economic analysis from an ongoing trial; 143 patients (156 limbs) with GSV incompetence (CEAP clinical class 2 - 6) were included. Treatment was performed with RFA or HL/S. Follow up was performed up to one year using duplex ultrasound, revised venous clinical severity score (r-VCSS), Aberdeen Varicose Vein Questionnaire (AVVQ), and EuroQol-5D-3L (EQ-5D-3L). RESULTS: Seventy-eight limbs were treated with RFA and HL/S respectively. No treatment or conservative treatment was assumed to have zero in treatment cost and no treatment benefit. In the RFA group, one limb had reflux in the GSV after one month and three limbs after one year. In HL/S, two limbs had remaining reflux in the treated area at one month and one year. Both disease severity (r-VCSS, p = .004) and QoL (AVVQ, p = .021 and EQ-5D-3L, p = .028) were significantly improved over time. The QALY gain was 0.21 for RFA and 0.17 for HL/S. The cost per patient was calculated as €1 292 for RFA and €2 303 for HL/S. The cost per QALY (compared with no treatment or conservative treatment) was €6 155 for RFA and €13 549 for HL/S. With added cost for days absent from work the cost per QALY was €7 358 for RFA and €24 197 for HL/S. The cost per QALY for both methods was well below the threshold suggested by Swedish National Board of Health. CONCLUSION: RFA is more cost effective than HL/S and no treatment or conservative treatment at one year follow up.

Variations in utilization and clinical outcomes for endoscopic sphenopalatine artery ligation and endovascular arterial embolization in a single multi-hospital network.

PURPOSE: Endoscopic sphenopalatine artery ligation (ESPAL) and endovascular arterial embolization (EAE) are increasingly common treatment options for patients with refractory epistaxis. The objective of this study was to compare the utilization pattern and clinical outcomes between these interventions within our single multi-hospital network. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A retrospective study of all patients undergoing ESPAL and/or EAE within any of the hospitals in a single healthcare network between 2008 and 2017 was conducted. We compared differences in procedure utilization with various hospital characteristics. Secondarily, we evaluated clinical outcomes and costs associated with each procedure. RESULTS: Forty-three ESPAL and 33 EAE procedures were performed across 7 hospitals, with the majority of procedures being performed at teaching institutions (65% and 91%, p = .013). The majority of both interventions were performed in larger hospitals and EAE patients were more likely to undergo inter-hospital transfer compared to ESPAL patients (48.5% and 16.3%, p = .02). Success rates for ESPAL and EAE were comparable (95% and 93%); however, the median direct cost of treatment for EAE was significantly higher than the cost for ESPAL ($12984.89 and $5002.02, p < .0001). CONCLUSIONS: The majority of both ESPAL and EAE interventions were performed at teaching and larger hospitals. Transfers occurring prior to EAE may have been due to the limited availability of interventional radiology services, and likely contributed to the increased cost of treatment. ESPAL is a known cost-effective management strategy and should be considered early in treatment algorithms of refractory epistaxis.

[Analysis on clinical efficacy, safety and economy of Shaobei injection and elastic band ligation in the treatment of grade II or III hemorrhoids].

Objective: Currently, various treatments such as hemorrhoidectomy, ligation and sclerotherapy injection can be applied in grade II or III hemorrhoids. This study aims to compare the clinical efficacy, safety and economy between Shaobei injection and elastic band ligation in treating patients with grade II or grade III hemorrhoids. Methods: A retrospective cohort study was used. Clinical data of 60 patients with grade II or grade III hemorrhoids at Department of Anorectal Surgery of the Sixth Affiliated Hospital, Sun Yat-sen University between January 2019 and October 2019 were collected. Patients were divided into two groups according to surgical methods. Patients in the Shaobei group received Shaobei injection (n=28), and those in the ligation group received elastic band ligation (n=32). Inclusion criteria: (1) diagnosis of grade II or III hemorrhoid; (2) application of Shaobei injection or elastic band ligation; (3) age between 18-75 years old. Exclusion criteria: (1) comorbidity with anal fissure, anal fistula, anal sinusitis or other perianal diseases; (2) patients with mental disorder or poor compliance; (3) incomplete clinical or follow-up data. Recurrent rate, postoperative pain, anal edema, anal distension, total cost of hospitalization, length of hospitalization, and postoperative life quality EQ-5D-3L score were compared between the two groups at postoperative 6-month. Results: No significant difference was observed in the baseline data (including Nystrom hemorrhoid symptom score) between the two groups (all P>0.05), except gender ratio [male proportion: Shaobei 75% (21/28) vs. ligation 37.5%(12/32), χ(2)=8.485, P=0.004]. No significant difference in recurrent rate was found between the two groups [14.3% (4/28) vs. 9.4% (3/32), χ(2)=0.035, P=0.851]. Compared to the ligation group, Shaobei group showed less pain at postoperative day 1 [VAS median (range): 2 (1-6) vs. 3 (1-7), Z=2.814, P=0.005] and postoperative day 7 [VAS median (range): 0 (0-2) vs. 1 (0-4), Z=3.149, P=0.002]; lower anal edema ratio at postoperative day 1 [10.7% (3/28) vs. 34.4% (11/32), Z=4.673, P=0.037]; lower anal distension ratio at postoperative day 1 [7.1% (2/28) vs. 28.1% (9/32), Z=4.391, P=0.048]; less hospitalization cost [(6343.5±1444.1) yuan vs. (10 587.1± 1719.0) yuan, t=12.515, P<0.001] and shorter postoperative hospital stay [median (range): 1 (1-5) days vs. 3 (1-6) days, Z=5.879, P<0.001]. The EQ-5D-3L scores of two groups were significantly improved six months after treatment [Shaobei group: (0.90±0.16) vs. (0.73±0.14); ligation group: (0.91±0.13) vs. (0.74±0.10); both P<0.001], while there was no statistically significant difference between the two groups (t=0.130, P=0.897). No complications such as massive hemorrhage, infection, iatrogenic anal fistula, rectal stricture and local induration occurred after the injection. Conclusions: Shaobei injection is effective and safe in treating grade II or III hemorrhoids. Compared with elastic band ligation, it can reduce morbidity of complications and hospitalization expenses.

Experimental Models of Partial Intestinal Obstruction in Young Mice: Establishment, and Evaluation.

BACKGROUND: Partial small bowel obstruction (SBO) is a common, potentially hazardous, surgical entity caused by numerous factors in humans. A number of techniques have been reported as efficient to simulate partial SBO in murine models. However, there is little data concerning their long-term survival. Our study presents a novel technique and evaluates its long-term efficiency compared with other commonly used techniques. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Sixty C57BL/6 mice aged 6 to 8 wk were randomly divided into five intervention groups: ligation, intestinal ring, partial ligation, microclips, and the novel triple suture technique. The ring groups were subdivided into narrow, medium, and wide ring and partial ligation groups were subdivided at 1/3, 1/2, and 2/3 of the lumen. Survival cutoff time was set at 4 wk. Animals were then euthanized and small bowel muscle layer thickness was histopathologically evaluated. RESULTS: None of the animals of the ligation and the ring groups reached the cutoff survival time. The mortality rate of the partial ligation and the microclips groups at the 4-week period were 33.3% and 0%, respectively. However, elimination of the performed intervention was revealed at the time of euthanasia and no alterations of the muscle layer were revealed at histopathology. The "triple suture" group had a survival rate of 90% until euthanasia and the sutures were apparent in all cases. Macroscopic evaluation showed small to mild proximal lumen dilatation in 6 of 10 animals. Histopathological evaluation of the specimens confirmed the partial obstruction. CONCLUSIONS: The "triple suture" technique is a new, robust, reliable, and inexpensive technique for experimental long-standing partial SBO, with very low mortality.

Hemorrhoid Banding: A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Hemorrhoid banding is an established treatment for symptomatic internal hemorrhoids with proven efficacy, low cost, and limited discomfort. Although the costs and quality of life following individual banding treatments have been investigated, little is known about cumulative cost and quality of life from sequential banding therapy or how these cumulative costs compare to surgical therapy. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to determine the cost-effectiveness of sequential hemorrhoid banding therapy. DESIGN: A retrospective review of historic banding treatment patterns was performed. Cost estimates and quality-of-life predictions were applied to observed treatment patterns in a decision-analytic cost-effectiveness model to compare sequential banding therapy with hypothetical surgical intervention. SETTING: A retrospective billing record review for patients treated in a colorectal specialty clinic between 2012 and 2017 was performed. PATIENTS: Patients initially treated with banding therapy for symptomatic internal hemorrhoids were included. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: The primary outcomes measured were hemorrhoid banding treatment patterns, cost-effectiveness, and net monetary benefit. RESULTS: Treatment of 2026 patients undergoing hemorrhoid banding identified 94% resolution with sequential banding and 6% requiring delayed surgical intervention. Average cumulative estimated cost for banding therapy was $723 (range, $382-$4430) per patient with an average quality-of-life deficit of -0.00234 (range, -0.00064 to -0.02638) quality-adjusted life-years. Estimates for hypothetical hemorrhoid artery ligation, stapled hemorrhoidopexy, or surgical hemorrhoidectomy found significantly higher cost (3.15×, 4.39×, and 2.75× more expensive) and a significantly worse quality-of-life deficit (1.55×, 5.64×, and 9.45× worse). For patients with persistent disease, continued sequential banding remained the dominant cost-effective therapy. LIMITATIONS: This cost-effectiveness model relies on a retrospective review of billing records with estimated cost and quality of life. CONCLUSIONS: Hemorrhoid banding is a valuable treatment modality with favorable cost-effectiveness. The majority of patients selected for banding find resolution without surgery. For patients with persistent disease, further banding procedures remain cost-effective compared with delayed surgical therapy. See Video Abstract at http://links.lww.com/DCR/A982. BANDA HEMORROIDAL: UN ANÁLISIS DE COSTO-EFECTIVIDAD: La banda para hemorroides es un tratamiento establecido para las hemorroides internas sintomáticas con eficacia comprobada, bajo costo y malestar limitado. Si bien se han investigado los costos y la calidad de vida después de los tratamientos de bandas individuales, se sabe poco sobre el costo acumulativo y la calidad de vida de la terapia de bandas secuencial o cómo estos costos acumulativos se comparan con la terapia quirúrgica. OBJETIVO: Determinar el costo-efectividad de la terapia secuencial de bandas hemorroidales. DISEÑO:: Se realizó una revisión retrospectiva de la historia de los patrones de tratamiento con bandas. Las estimaciones de costos y las predicciones de la calidad de vida se aplicaron a los patrones de tratamiento observados en un modelo analítico de costo-efectividad para comparar la terapia de bandas secuencial con la intervención quirúrgica hipotética. AJUSTE: Revisión retrospectiva de los registros de facturación de los pacientes tratados en una clínica de especialidad colorrectal entre 2012 y 2017. PACIENTES: Pacientes tratados inicialmente con terapia de bandas para hemorroides internas sintomáticas. PRINCIPALES MEDIDAS DE RESULTADO: Patrones de tratamiento con bandas de hemorroides, costo-efectividad y beneficio monetario neto. RESULTADOS: El tratamiento de 2026 pacientes con bandas identificó una resolución del 94% con bandas secuenciales y el 6% requirió una intervención quirúrgica tardía. El costo promedio acumulado estimado para la terapia de banda fue de $ 723 (Rango: $382-$4430) por paciente con un déficit de calidad de vida promedio de -0.00234 (Rango: -0.00064 a -0.02638) años de vida ajustados por calidad. Las estimaciones para la hipotética ligadura de la arteria hemorroidal, la hemorroidopexia con grapas o la hemorroidectomía quirúrgica encontraron un costo significativamente mayor (3.15×, 4.39×, 2.75× más caro) y un déficit de la calidad de vida significativamente peor (1.55×, 5.64×, 9.45× peor). Para los pacientes con enfermedad persistente, la colocación de bandas secuenciales continuas siguió siendo la terapia rentable dominante. LIMITACIONES: Este modelo de costo-efectividad se basa en una revisión retrospectiva de los registros de facturación con el costo y la calidad de vida estimados. CONCLUSIONES: Las bandas de hemorroides son una valiosa modalidad de tratamiento con una favorable relación costo-efectividad. La mayoría de los pacientes seleccionados para terapia con bandas encuentran resolución sin cirugía. Para los pacientes con enfermedad persistente, los procedimientos de colocación de bandas adicionales siguen siendo rentables en comparación con el tratamiento quirúrgico tardío. Vea el Resumen del video en http://links.lww.com/DCR/A982.

Cost-effectiveness of trans-nasal endoscopic sphenopalatine artery ligation vs arterial embolisation for intractable epistaxis: Long-term analyses.

OBJECTIVES: Trans-nasal endoscopic sphenopalatine artery ligation (TESPAL) and endovascular arterial embolisation both provide excellent success rates for intractable epistaxis. Recent economic models suggest that TESPAL could be a cost-saving strategy. Our main aim was to perform cost-effectiveness analyses on TESPAL compared with embolisation to treat patients with epistaxis. DESIGN: We performed retrospective, monocentric, comparative analyses on patients referred to our centre and treated with embolisation or TESPAL. SETTING: This economic evaluation was carried out from a payer's perspective (ie French National Health Insurance) within a time horizon of 12 months. PARTICIPANTS: Thirty-seven TESPAL procedures and thirty-nine embolisation procedures to treat intractable epistaxis were used in the analyses. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome is presented as the cost per 1% of non-recurrence. Effectiveness was defined as avoiding recurrence of epistaxis during the 1-year follow-up. Cost estimates were performed from the payer's perspective. RESULTS: Hospitalisation costs were higher for embolisation compared with TESPAL (5972 vs 3769 euros). On average, hospitalisation costs decreased by 41% when a patient was treated by TESPAL compared with an embolisation strategy (P = 0.06). The presence of comorbidities increased hospitalisation costs by 79% (P = 0.04). TESPAL enabled 1867€ to be gained in intractable epistaxis. CONCLUSIONS: The outcomes from our decision model confirm that TESPAL is more cost-effective for patients with intractable epistaxis.

Cost Effectiveness of Different Methods of Appendiceal Stump Closure during Laparoscopic Appendectomy.

There is no standard method for closure of an appendiceal stump during laparoscopic appendectomy. This study compares stump closure using a stapler with closure using an Endoloop ligature. The charts of all patients who underwent laparoscopic appendectomy at a single tertiary care center over a two-year period were reviewed for demographics, comobidities, operative details and costs, and outcomes. There were 325 patients who underwent a laparoscopic appendectomy. The majority, 250 (77%), underwent stump closure with a stapler. They were equivalent in demographics and postoperative complication rates. Cases using an Endoloop were slightly faster in terms of procedure time and room time, and less expensive in terms of operative supply cost. The price difference is not explained by time saved in the operating room and more likely by the equipment price.

[Comparación entre ligadura con lazo hemostático y engrapadora mecánica lineal para el cierre de base apendicular]. / Comparison between endoloop and linear mechanical stapler for the appendicular stump closure.

INTRODUCCIÓN: En las últimas décadas es creciente el abordaje por mínima invasión de patologías abdominales debido a sus beneficios evidentes. El cuadro apendicular es la principal emergencia quirúrgica, con diferentes métodos del cierre de la base apendicular. En este artículo comparamos dicho cierre con engrapadora lineal o ligadura con lazo hemostático, para analizar la frecuencia de complicaciones como absceso, dehiscencia y seroma. MÉTODO: Se realizó un estudio prospectivo, observacional y descriptivo, con un total de 703 procedimientos, empleando en 567 pacientes ligadura con lazo hemostático y en 136 engrapadora lineal, operados por los mismos cirujano y equipo quirúrgico, con curva de aprendizaje concluida. RESULTADOS: Las complicaciones referidas en el presente estudio son absceso (n = 5), dehiscencia (n = 3) y seroma (n = 3). De acuerdo con las fases de la patología apendicular: fase 1 o apéndice congestivo, no presentaron complicaciones; fase 2 o supurativo, se reportó un caso de dehiscencia de herida quirúrgica con el uso de ligadura con lazo hemostático; fase 3 o necrótico, se reportó un caso de seroma en un paciente tratado con ligadura con lazo hemostático; y fase 4 o perforado, se encuentra diferencia significativa en el caso de abscesos, reportando cinco con el uso de ligadura con lazo hemostático y ninguno con engrapadora lineal. CONCLUSIONES: En nuestro estudio no existe diferencia estadísticamente significativa entre el uso de engrapadora lineal o ligadura con lazo hemostático en las fases apendiculares 1-3; en la fase 4 es de utilidad significativa el uso de engrapadora lineal ante la incidencia de abscesos. INTRODUCTION: In the last decades, the approach by minimally invasive surgery of abdominal pathologies is growing due to its evident benefits; the appendicular cases being the main surgical emergency, with different methods of closing the appendicular base. In this article, we compared the appendicular base closure with linear stapler and endoloop, to analyze the frequency of complications such as abscess, dehiscence and seroma. METHOD: A prospective, observational and descriptive study was conducted, with a total of 703 procedures, using 567 endoloop patients and 136 linear stapler, operated by the same surgeon and surgical team, with a completed learning curve. RESULTS: The complications referred in the present study were patients with abscess (n = 5), dehiscence (n = 3) and seroma (n = 3). According to the phases of the appendiceal pathology: phase 1 or congestive appendix did not present complications; phase 2 or suppurative was reported one case of surgical wound dehiscence in the use of endoloop; in phase 3 or necrotic, one case of seroma was reported in a patient treated with endoloop; while in phase 4 or perforated there is a significant difference in the case of abscesses, reporting five in the use of endoloop and none in the case of a linear stapler. CONCLUSIONS: In our study there is no statistically significant difference between the use of linear stapler or endoloop in the early appendicular phases; being of significant utility in Phase 4 the use of linear stapler for the incidence of abscesses.

Looped suture versus stapler device in pediatric laparoscopic appendectomy: a comparative outcomes and intraoperative cost analysis.

BACKGROUND: Appendiceal ligation during pediatric laparoscopic appendectomy (LA) may be performed using looped suture versus stapler. Controversy regarding the utility of either method exists. Clinical outcomes and cost analysis of LA with both methods were compared. METHODS: All pediatric LA were performed from fiscal years 2013 and 2014 by two pediatric surgeons. While one surgeon used looped suture, the other used stapler exclusively. chi-Square tests were performed to analyze associations. RESULTS: Two hundred thirty-eight cases were analyzed where looped suture versus stapler LA was performed in 46% and 54% of patients, respectively. Operating room costs were $317.10 and $707.12/person for looped suture and stapler LA, respectively (P<0.0001). Difference in cost of $390.02/person was attributed solely to ligation type. On bivariate analysis, rate of in-hospital complications, length of stay, return-to-ER and readmission within 30 days did not significantly differ between groups. CONCLUSION: A comparative analysis of looped suture versus stapler device during LA for pediatric appendicitis revealed that postoperative complications, length of stay, ER visits and readmissions were not significantly different. Looped suture LA was significantly more cost efficient than stapler LA. In pediatric appendicitis, appendiceal ligation during LA may be performed safely and cost effectively with looped suture versus stapler. TYPE OF STUDY: Cost effectiveness LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: III.

Randomized controlled trial of scleroligation versus band ligation alone for eradication of gastroesophageal varices.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Gastric varices develop in 5% to 33% of patients with portal hypertension. Their most common form is concomitant gastroesophageal varices. Scleroligation (combined sclerotherapy and band ligation) has been used successfully in management of esophageal varices but has not been evaluated previously in the management of gastroesophageal varices. The aim of this work was evaluation of a new scleroligation technique for management of bleeding gastroesophageal varices regarding efficacy, adverse events, variceal recurrence, and survival. METHODS: This study was conducted on 120 cirrhotic patients with bleeding gastroesophageal varices, whom we divided randomly into 2 groups of 60 patients each-a band ligation group and a scleroligation group. RESULTS: The mean number of sessions was lower in the scleroligation group than in the band ligation group (2.22 ± 0.92 and 3.43 ± 0.67, respectively) (P < .001), as were the duration of treatment and total number of bands used. Cost and survival were comparable in the 2 groups. There was no significant difference between the 2 maneuvers regarding adverse events, recurrence rates, or rebleeding rates after obliteration. Recurrence was significantly higher in patients with larger varices, ulceration, and postprocedure pyrexia. Rebleeding was significantly higher among those who experienced postprocedure pyrexia and developed or had worsening of gastric antral vascular ectasia. CONCLUSIONS: Scleroligation appears to achieve a faster rate of eradication with fewer treatment sessions and total number of bands deployed to achieve variceal obliteration than band ligation and is comparable in cost and in adverse event and recurrence rates. (Clinical trial registration number: NCT02646202.).

The HubBLe Trial: haemorrhoidal artery ligation (HAL) versus rubber band ligation (RBL) for symptomatic second- and third-degree haemorrhoids: a multicentre randomised controlled trial and health-economic evaluation.

BACKGROUND: Optimal surgical intervention for low-grade haemorrhoids is unknown. Rubber band ligation (RBL) is probably the most common intervention. Haemorrhoidal artery ligation (HAL) is a novel alternative that may be more efficacious. OBJECTIVE: The comparison of HAL with RBL for the treatment of grade II/III haemorrhoids. DESIGN: A multicentre, parallel-group randomised controlled trial. PERSPECTIVE: UK NHS and Personal Social Services. SETTING: 17 NHS Trusts. PARTICIPANTS: Patients aged ≥ 18 years presenting with grade II/III (second- and third-degree) haemorrhoids, including those who have undergone previous RBL. INTERVENTIONS: HAL with Doppler probe compared with RBL. OUTCOMES: Primary outcome - recurrence at 1 year post procedure; secondary outcomes - recurrence at 6 weeks; haemorrhoid severity score; European Quality of Life-5 Dimensions, 5-level version (EQ-5D-5L); Vaizey incontinence score; pain assessment; complications; and cost-effectiveness. RESULTS: A total of 370 participants entered the trial. At 1 year post procedure, 30% of the HAL group had evidence of recurrence compared with 49% after RBL [adjusted odds ratio (OR) = 2.23, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.42 to 3.51; p = 0.0005]. The main reason for the difference was the number of extra procedures required to achieve improvement/cure. If a single HAL is compared with multiple RBLs then only 37.5% recurred in the RBL arm (adjusted OR 1.35, 95% CI 0.85 to 2.15; p = 0.20). Persistence of significant symptoms at 6 weeks was lower in both arms than at 1 year (9% HAL and 29% RBL), suggesting significant deterioration in both groups over the year. Symptom score, EQ-5D-5L and Vaizey score improved in both groups compared with baseline, but there was no difference between interventions. Pain was less severe and of shorter duration in the RBL group; most of the HAL group who had pain had mild to moderate pain, resolving by 3 weeks. Complications were low frequency and not significantly different between groups. It appeared that HAL was not cost-effective compared with RBL. In the base-case analysis, the difference in mean total costs was £1027 higher for HAL. Quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) were higher for HAL; however, the difference was very small (0.01) resulting in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of £104,427 per additional QALY. CONCLUSIONS: At 1 year, although HAL resulted in fewer recurrences, recurrence was similar to repeat RBL. Symptom scores, complications, EQ-5D-5L and continence score were no different, and patients had more pain in the early postoperative period after HAL. HAL is more expensive and unlikely to be cost-effective in terms of incremental cost per QALY. LIMITATIONS: Blinding of participants and site staff was not possible. FUTURE WORK: The incidence of recurrence may continue to increase with time. Further follow-up would add to the evidence regarding long-term clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness. The polysymptomatic nature of haemorrhoidal disease requires a validated scoring system, and the data from this trial will allow further assessment of validity of such a system. These data add to the literature regarding treatment of grade II/III haemorrhoids. The results dovetail with results from the eTHoS study [Watson AJM, Hudson J, Wood J, Kilonzo M, Brown SR, McDonald A, et al. Comparison of stapled haemorrhoidopexy with traditional excisional surgery for haemorrhoidal disease (eTHoS): a pragmatic, multicentre, randomised controlled trial. Lancet 2016, in press.] comparing stapled haemorrhoidectomy with excisional haemorrhoidectomy. Combined results will allow expansion of analysis, allowing surgeons to tailor their treatment options to individual patients. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN41394716. FUNDING: This project was funded by the NIHR Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 20, No. 88. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Cost-effectiveness of New Surgical Treatments for Hemorrhoidal Disease: A Multicentre Randomized Controlled Trial Comparing Transanal Doppler-guided Hemorrhoidal Artery Ligation With Mucopexy and Circular Stapled Hemorrhoidopexy.

OBJECTIVE: To compare Doppler-guided hemorrhoidal artery ligation (DGHAL) with circular stapled hemorrhoidopexy (SH) in the treatment of grade II/III hemorrhoidal disease (HD). BACKGROUND: DGHAL is a treatment option for symptomatic HD; existing studies report limited risk and satisfactory outcomes. DGHAL has never before been compared with SH in a large-scale multi-institutional randomized clinical trial. METHODS: Three hundred ninety-three grade II/III HD patients recruited in 22 centers from 2010 to 2013 were randomized to DGHAL (n = 197) or SH (n = 196). The primary endpoint was operative-related morbidity at 3 months (D.90) based on the Clavien-Dindo surgical complications grading. Total cost, cost-effectiveness, and clinical outcome were assessed at 1 year. RESULTS: At D.90, operative-related adverse events occurred after DGHAL and SH, respectively, in 47 (24%) and 50 (26%) patients (P = 0.70). DGHAL resulted in longer mean operating time (44±16 vs 30±14 min; P < 0.001), less pain (postoperative and at 2 wks visual analogic scale: 2.2 vs 2.8; 1.3 vs 1.9; P = 0.03; P = 0.013) and shorter sick leave (12.3 vs 14.8 d; P = 0.045). At 1 year, DGHAL led to more residual grade III HD (15% vs 5%) and a higher reoperation rate (8% vs 4%). Patient satisfaction was >90% for both procedures. Total cost at 1 year was greater for DGHAL [&OV0556;2806 (&OV0556;2670; 2967) vs &OV0556;2538 (&OV0556;2386; 2737)]. The D.90, incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was &OV0556;7192 per averted complication. At 1 year DGHAL strategy was dominated. CONCLUSIONS: DGHAL and SH are viable options in grade II/III HD with no significant difference in operative-related risk. Although resulting in less postoperative pain and shorter sick leave, DGHAL was more expensive, took longer, and provided a possible inferior anatomical correction suggesting an increased risk of recurrence.

Haemorrhoidal artery ligation versus rubber band ligation for the management of symptomatic second-degree and third-degree haemorrhoids (HubBLe): a multicentre, open-label, randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Optimum surgical intervention for low-grade haemorrhoids is unknown. Haemorrhoidal artery ligation (HAL) has been proposed as an efficacious, safe therapy while rubber band ligation (RBL) is a commonly used outpatient treatment. We compared recurrence after HAL versus RBL in patients with grade II-III haemorrhoids. METHODS: This multicentre, open-label, parallel group, randomised controlled trial included patients from 17 acute UK NHS trusts. We screened patients aged 18 years or older presenting with grade II-III haemorrhoids. We excluded patients who had previously received any haemorrhoid surgery, more than one injection treatment for haemorrhoids, or more than one RBL procedure within 3 years before recruitment. Eligible patients were randomly assigned (in a 1:1 ratio) to either RBL or HAL with Doppler. Randomisation was computer-generated and stratified by centre with blocks of random sizes. Allocation concealment was achieved using a web-based system. The study was open-label with no masking of participants, clinicians, or research staff. The primary outcome was recurrence at 1 year, derived from the patient's self-reported assessment in combination with resource use from their general practitioner and hospital records. Recurrence was analysed in patients who had undergone one of the interventions and been followed up for at least 1 year. This study is registered with the ISRCTN registry, ISRCTN41394716. FINDINGS: From Sept 9, 2012, to May 6, 2014, of 969 patients screened, 185 were randomly assigned to the HAL group and 187 to the RBL group. Of these participants, 337 had primary outcome data (176 in the RBL group and 161 in the HAL group). At 1 year post-procedure, 87 (49%) of 176 patients in the RBL group and 48 (30%) of 161 patients in the HAL group had haemorrhoid recurrence (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 2·23, 95% CI 1·42-3·51; p=0·0005). The main reason for this difference was the number of extra procedures required to achieve improvement (57 [32%] participants in the RBL group and 23 [14%] participants in the HAL group had a subsequent procedure for haemorrhoids). The mean pain 1 day after procedure was 3·4 (SD 2·8) in the RBL group and 4·6 (2·8) in the HAL group (difference -1·2, 95% CI -1·8 to -0·5; p=0·0002); at day 7 the scores were 1·6 (2·3) in the RBL group and 3·1 (2·4) in the HAL group (difference -1·5, -2·0 to -1·0; p<0·0001). Pain scores did not differ between groups at 21 days and 6 weeks. 15 individuals reported serious adverse events requiring hospital admission. One patient in the RBL group had a pre-existing rectal tumour. Of the remaining 14 serious adverse events, 12 (7%) were among participants treated with HAL and two (1%) were in those treated with RBL. Six patients had pain (one treated with RBL, five treated with HAL), three had bleeding not requiring transfusion (one treated with RBL, two treated with HAL), two in the HAL group had urinary retention, two in the HAL group had vasovagal upset, and one in the HAL group had possible sepsis (treated with antibiotics). INTERPRETATION: Although recurrence after HAL was lower than a single RBL, HAL was more painful than RBL. The difference in recurrence was due to the need for repeat bandings in the RBL group. Patients (and health commissioners) might prefer such a course of RBL to the more invasive HAL. FUNDING: NIHR Health Technology Assessment programme.

Radiofrequency ablation: an assessment of clinical and cost efficacy.

BACKGROUND: Varicose veins are common and frequently cause patient distress. In recent years, Radiofrequency ablation (RFA) has emerged as a minimally invasive alternative to traditional open venous ligation surgery. AIMS: The aim of this study was to directly compare RFA and open saphenofemoral ligation. METHODS: This was a single-centre retrospective cohort study. Consecutive patients undergoing surgical management over a 2-year period commencing from January 2011 were studied. Radiological success, peri-operative serological testing and hospital length of stay were documented. Procedural cost was calculated. A focused cohort analysis was undertaken to compare the initial 50 RFA procedures performed with the last 50. RESULTS: During the study period, 296 patients underwent surgical intervention. A total of 204 patients underwent RFA. Sixty-six percent of all patients were female. RFA was associated with a reduction in overnight hospital stay (18 vs. 78 %, P = <0.001) when compared with open ligation with a success rate of 98 %. No significant inter-group difference was noted for 30-day readmission (p = 0.203). Focused cohort analysis identified an increase in hospital day case activity (74 vs. 90 %, p = 0.002), which contributed to a reduction in procedural cost (€1,024 vs. €971, p = 0.003) over the study period. CONCLUSIONS: Radiofrequency ablation is a viable alternative to open repair offering excellent efficacy. It is however associated with a higher procedural cost than the open surgical option.

Superficial venous incompetence: low-cost outpatient minisurgery, sclerotherapy and combined procedure as a management plan. Costs and efficacy. A 20-year, follow-up registry.

BACKGROUND: This registry study evaluated low-cost outpatient surgery (mini-S) for venous insufficiency as an alternative to stripping. METHODS: This 20-year follow-up is focused on the recurrence of varices and on the long-term efficacy of the mini-S (group 1) in comparison with controls (2, stripping), sclerotherapy (3) or a combination of mini-S+sclerotherapy (4). Costs were compared. RESULTS: At 20-years of follow-up, considering recurrence/development of new varicose veins, 24.05% of the limbs treated with mini-S developed new varices in comparison with 64.4% in group 2, 24.1% in group 3 and 15.4% in group 4 (P<0.05). New surgical procedures were needed in 18.9% of mini-S patients vs. 58.5% in group 2, 21.9% in group 3 and 19.7% in group 4 (P<0.05 between group 2 and the other groups). Sclerotherapy (in the years following the initial treatment) was used in 37.9% of mini-S patients in comparison with 67.7% of subjects in group 2 patients, 33.1% in group 3 and 22.8% in group 4 (P<0.05 between outpatient treatment and group 2). The superficial venous system was incompetent in 21% of mini-S patients in comparison with 38.8% in group 2 (P<0.05), 20.7% in group 3 and 17.9% of group 4. At 20 years edema was present in 10.5% of limbs in group 2 in comparison with a <3% (range 2.2-2.1%) in the other groups. Edema was more significant after stripping. Ambulatory venous pressure measurements in subgroups was lower in groups 1, 3 and 4 with a lower refilling time (P<0.05). The cost of in-hospital, daily surgical treatments were €1978 (covered by the heathcare provider). The cost of mini-S was on average €488 per limb (covered by patients). CONCLUSIONS: Outpatients procedures, in particular the mini-S management plan, were cheaper than stripping and more effective at 20-years follow-up. They could be a model for emerging contries with restricted budgets for vein surgery. Also being cheaper more people may have benefits from treatment when/where hospital procedures are not covered by an healthcare provider.

Developing a laddered algorithm for the management of intractable epistaxis: a risk analysis.

IMPORTANCE: For patients with epistaxis in whom initial interventions, such as anterior packing and cauterization, had failed, options including prolonged posterior packing, transnasal endoscopic sphenopalatine artery ligation (TESPAL), and embolization are available. However, it is unclear which interventions should be attempted and in which order. While cost-effectiveness analyses have suggested that TESPAL is the most responsible use of health care resources, physicians must also consider patient risk to maintain a patient-centered decision-making process. OBJECTIVE: To quantify the risk associated with the management of intractable epistaxis. DESIGN AND SETTING: A risk analysis was performed using literature-reported probabilities of treatment failure and adverse event likelihoods in an emergency department and otolaryngology hospital admissions setting. The literature search included articles from 1980 to May 2014. The analysis was modeled for a 50-year-old man with no other medical comorbidities. Severities of complications were modeled based on Environmental Protection Agency recommendations, and health state utilities were monetized based on a willingness to pay $22 500 per quality-adjusted life-year. Six management strategies were developed using posterior packing, TESPAL, and embolization in various sequences (P, T, and E, respectively). MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Total risk associated with each algorithm quantified in US dollars. RESULTS: Algorithms involving posterior packing and TESPAL as first-line interventions were found to be similarly low risk. The lowest-risk approaches were P-T-E ($2437.99 [range, $1482.83-$6976.40]), T-P-E ($2840.65 [range, $1136.89-$8604.97]), and T-E-P ($2867.82 [range, $1141.05-$9833.96]). Embolization as a first-line treatment raised the total risk significantly owing to the risk of cerebrovascular events (E-T-P, $11 945.42 [range, $3911.43-$31 847.00]; and E-P-T, $11 945.71 [range, $3919.91-$31 767.66]). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Laddered approaches using TESPAL and posterior packing appear to provide the lowest risk. Combining risk and cost-effectiveness perspectives, we recommend a laddered approach to intractable epistaxis with TESPAL first, followed by either embolization or posterior packing.

Construct validation of a cost-effective vessel ligation benchtop simulator.

OBJECTIVE: Many benchtop surgical simulators assess laparoscopic proficiency, yet few address core open surgical skills. The purpose of this study is to describe a cost-effective benchtop vessel ligation simulator and provide construct validation. DESIGN: A prospective comparison of blinded proficiency assessments among participants performing a benchtop vessel ligation simulation task. Evaluations were performed using Objective Structured Assessments of Technical Skills. SETTING: This study took place at the University of Virginia, School of Medicine: a large academic medical institution. PARTICIPANTS: The participants included fourth-year medical students participating in a focused surgical elective course (n = 16), postgraduate year 2 to 3 surgery residents (n = 6), and surgical faculty (n = 5). RESULTS: The total fixed costs of the vessel ligation simulator was $30. Flexible costs of operation were less than $0.20 per attempt. The median task-specific checklist scores among the medical students, residents, and faculty were 4.83, 7.33, and 7.67, respectively. Median global rating scores across the 3 groups were 2.29, 4.43, and 4.76, respectively. Significant proficiency differences were noted between the students and the residents/faculty for both the metrics (p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: A cost-effective benchtop simulator can effectively measure proficiency with basic open surgical techniques such as vessel ligation. Among the junior surgical trainees, this tool can identify learning gaps and improve operative skills in a preclinical setting.

The Covidien LigaSure Maryland Jaw Device.

Since its invention nearly 20 years ago, the Covidien LigaSure device along with its ForceTriad generator has dominated the Electrothermal Bipolar Vessel Sealing market. The LigaSure was used for surgical procedures, both open and laparoscopic. The purpose of this review is to provide evidence of the safety and utility of the LigaSure device compared to more traditional means of hemostasis and its ultrasonic competitor, particularly in laparoscopic applications. We will provide evidence related to electrothermal bipolar vessel sealing in general and look specifically at Covidien's newest product, the LigaSure Maryland Jaw Device.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of endoscopic sphenopalatine artery ligation vs arterial embolization for intractable epistaxis.

IMPORTANCE: Intractable epistaxis is a common otolaryngology emergency. Transnasal endoscopic sphenopalatine artery ligation (TESPAL) and endovascular arterial embolization both provide excellent success rates, and therefore the decision to choose one over the other can be challenging. OBJECTIVE: To aid in decision making by evaluating the cost-effectiveness of TESPAL vs endovascular arterial embolization for intractable epistaxis. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Economic evaluation using a decision tree model with a 14-day time horizon for emergency department consultations for patients with intractable epistaxis defined as persistent bleeding despite bilateral anterior nasal packing. The economic perspective was the health care third-party payer. Effectiveness and probability data were obtained from the published medical literature. Costs were obtained from the published literature, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services database, and the Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project database. Multiple sensitivity analyses were performed, including a probabilistic sensitivity analysis. Comparative treatment groups were (1) TESPAL and (2) embolization. INTERVENTIONS: TESPAL and endovascular arterial embolization. MAIN OUTCOME AND MEASURES: The primary outcome was the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) for successful control of epistaxis. RESULTS: The reference case demonstrated that the embolization strategy was more effective but more costly compared with the TESPAL strategy: $22,324.70 per 0.70 effectiveness compared with $12,484.14 per 0.68 of effectiveness, respectively. The embolization vs TESPAL ICER was $492,028, which is higher than any willingness to pay (WTP), suggesting that TESPAL is the cost-effective decision. The sensitivity analysis demonstrated a 77.6% and 73.7% certainty that the TESPAL strategy is cost-effective at WTP thresholds of $10,000 and $50,000, respectively. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Results from this economic evaluation suggest that when both TESPAL and arterial embolization are viable options (based on patient and institutional factors), TESPAL is the more cost-effective treatment strategy for patients with intractable epistaxis.