Cost of complex abdominal wall reconstruction with biological prostheses in a French public hospital.

GOAL: Retrospective analysis of bioprosthetic abdominal wall reconstruction in our center with regard to expenses and reimbursement. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This study included all patients undergoing bioprosthetic abdominal wall reconstruction between 2009 and 2015. All costs were considered in determining the hospital expenditures. Next we compared the incoming revenue for each hospital stay based on disease-related groups (DRG) and additional daily hospital fees. RESULTS: Seventy-six patients underwent abdominal wall reconstruction, 67 of whom had economical data that were exploitable. On the average, our center lost €15,233 for every hospital stay associated with bioprosthetic abdominal wall reconstruction. The existing DRG system is not well adapted to provide adequate reimbursement for costs related to complex abdominal wall repairs, especially when post-operative morbidity leads to prolonged hospital stay and increased expenses. CONCLUSION: Abdominal wall repairs with bioprostheses are expensive and are poorly reimbursed in the French Health care system, mainly because they are often associated with complications that increase the costs considerably. In our opinion, it seems necessary that either reimbursement of this type of prosthesis should be higher than the current DRG allows, or that the DRG classification be redefined, or even, that a specific DRG be created for complex abdominal wall reconstruction.

[Impact of the angles and the age of the thrombus on efficacity of thromboaspiration device. A bench study]. / Impact du diamètre et de l'âge du thrombus sur la thromboaspiration. Étude expérimentale.

INTRODUCTION: Coronary thrombectomy is usually used to treat acute coronary syndrome. Many studies evaluated its benefit in this context however, it is still unknown if coronary characteristics are predictive of success or failure. The aim of our laboratory bench study was to evaluate the impact of angiographic characteristics on the thromboaspiration efficiency. METHODS: Glass tubes of 150 mm in the length were used, with five diameters: 2; 2.6; 3; 3.6 and 4 mm; and for each diameter, three angulations: no angulation; 90° and 120°. Blood sample were taken from healthy subject and thrombi of 3 and 6 hours old were performed, with a constant volume for each test. Thromboaspirations were performed with an Export(®) catheter (Medtronic). The primary endpoint was total thrombectomy. A total of 240 thromboaspirations were performed. RESULTS: A total thrombectomy was obtained for 71.2% of the tests. It was achieved more frequently with the smaller diameter, respectively: 100% for 2 mm, 81.3% for 2.6 mm, 89.6% for 3 mm vs 54.2% for 3.6 mm and 31.3% for 4 mm (P<0.001). No differences were observed between the 2 thrombi ages (73.3% for the 3 hours old thrombi and 69.2% for the 6 hours old thrombi, P = 0.476), nor between the three tube's angulations (77.5% for no angle, 66.3% for 90° and 70.0% for 120°, P = 0.278). RESULTS AND CONCLUSION: This study shows an impact of the coronary diameters on the rate of thromboaspiration success with an Export(®) catheter. Beyond 3 mm of diameter, the rate of success is divided by 2: for diameters less or equal to 3 mm, 90.3% of success vs 42.7% for diameters greater than 3 mm (P<0.001). There is no difference of efficiency between the 3 and 6 hours old thrombi, neither between the tube's angulations. However, this is a preliminary and further works are needed to clarify how to optimize the aspiration and the impact of other catheters.

[Disposable versus reusable biopsy forceps. A prospective cost analysis in the gastrointestinal endoscopy unit of the Dijon University Hospital]. / Pinces à biopsie jetables versus réutilisables. Evaluation économique prospective dan l'unité d'endoscopic digestive du CHU de Dijon.

AIMS: The goal of this study was to compare the cost of a biopsy session performed with a disposable and a reusable endoscopic biopsy forceps. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Over a 10-month period, 15 new reusable forceps (10 gastric and 5 colonic) were prospectively tracked. A biopsy session performed with a reusable forceps included its current purchase price, the sterilization cost and the number of uses. A biopsy session performed with a disposable forceps was calculated with its current purchase price and its incineration cost. RESULTS: At the end of the study, only one reusable forceps had broken and the number of uses was 65. The cost of a biopsy session performed with a gastric reusable forceps was euro 7.52 (including euro 1.92 of sterilization cost) and euro 8.67 for a reusable colonic forceps (with the same sterilization cost). The cost of a biopsy session performed with a gastric or a colonic disposable forceps was euro 11.98. From 44 uses for a colonic forceps and 37 uses for a gastric one, a biopsy session performed with a reusable forceps was already cheaper. CONCLUSION: In this study, a biopsy session performed with a reusable forceps was less expensive than with a disposable one. However, the extra cost generated by the disposable forceps may be offset by an easier inventory control and the reduction of the cross contamination risk.

Management of diabetes in French prisons: a cross-sectional study.

AIMS: To assess by a survey the management of prisoners with diabetes treated with insulin in French prisons. METHODS: A questionnaire was sent to the head of healthcare services for prisoners of every French prison. Information was obtained on prevalence of insulin-treated diabetes prisoners and diabetes care in prison. The number of episides of ketoacidosis and hypoglycaemia needing hospital admissions were evaluated during the past year. RESULTS: Among the 163 questionnaires sent, 115 were returned, giving an overall response rate of 69%. At the time of the study the prison population was 38 175 people. One hundred and sixty-nine prisoners were treated by insulin (0.4%). Self-monitoring of blood glucose was available only for 94 (55.6%) insulin-treated prisoners. A total of 130 (76.9%) prisoners performed two insulin injections daily or less, 105 (62.1%) prisoners were not allowed to keep their insulin delivery systems with them. Of the prisoners who treated themselves, 14 (12.1%) used syringes and 42 (36.5%) used pen devices. Ninety-two (55.1%) prisoners had had access to a diabetes specialist during the previous year. Diabetic diets were available in only 65 (60.7%) prisons. From June 1998 to June 1999, there were 20 hospital admissions for a diabetic ketoacidosis and 14 for hypoglycaemia. CONCLUSIONS: This study shows that prison decreases the autonomy of diabetic prisoners who often cannot self-inject or test their blood. Access to visiting consultant diabetologists and specialist nurses to educate both prisoners with diabetes and prison staff could improve diabetic care.