Impacto económico del tratamiento a largo plazo de la incontinencia fecal grave / Economic burden of long-term treatment of severe fecal incontinence

Objetivo Conocer el coste económico a largo plazo asociado al tratamiento de la incontinencia fecal grave mediante SNS frente al tratamiento conservador sintomático y la colostomía definitiva. Métodos Estudio descriptivo pormenorizado de los costes del proceso asistencial (intervenciones, consultas, dispositivos, pruebas complementarias, hospitalización, etc.) de 3 alternativas de tratamiento de la incontinencia fecal empleando herramientas de gestión y contabilidad analítica del propio Servicio de Salud con base en datos de actividad clínica. Se estimó, en cada caso, la frecuencia de uso de recursos sanitarios o la cantidad de productos dispensados en farmacias (medicación, pañales, material de ostomía, etc.). Se incluyeron costes derivados de situaciones adversas. Se incluyeron pacientes con incontinencia fecal grave, definida por una puntación superior a 9 en la escala de severidad de Wexner, en los que han fracasado los tratamientos de primera línea. Se emplearon datos de una cohorte consecutiva de 93 pacientes a los que se realizó una SNS entre los años 2002 y 2016; de pacientes intervenidos de colostomía definitiva (n=2); hernia paraestomal (n=3) y estenosis de colostomía (n=1). Resultados El coste medio acumulado en 10 años por paciente en cada alternativa fue: 10.972,9€ para el tratamiento sintomático (62% pañales); 17.351,57€ para la SNS (95,83% intervenciones; 81,6% dispositivos), y 25.858,54€ para la colostomía definitiva (70,4% material de ostomía) Conclusiones El manejo de la incontinencia fecal grave implica un gran impacto en términos económicos. La colostomía es la alternativa que más costes directos genera, seguida de la SNS y el tratamiento sintomático (AU)

Introduction Find out the long-term economic cost associated with the treatment of severe fecal incontinence by SNS versus symptomatic conservative treatment and definitive colostomy. Methods Detailed descriptive study of the costs of the healthcare process (interventions, consultations, devices, complementary tests, hospitalization, etc.) of 3 treatment alternatives for fecal incontinence using analytical accounting tools of the Health Service based on clinical activity data. The frequency of use of health resources or the quantity of products dispensed in pharmacies (medication, diapers, ostomy material, etc.) was estimated in each case. Costs derived from adverse situations were included. Patients with severe fecal incontinence, defined by a score greater than 9 on the Wexner severity scale, in whom first-line treatments had failed, were included. Data from a consecutive cohort of 93 patients who underwent an SNS between 2002 and 2016 were used; patients who underwent definitive colostomy (n=2); parastomal hernia (n=3), and colostomy stenosis (n=1). Results The mean cumulative cost in 10 years per patient in each alternative was: € 10,972.9 symptomatic treatment (62% diapers); € 17,351.57 SNS (95.83% interventions; 81.6% devices); € 25,858.54 definitive colostomy (70.4% ostomy material and accessories). Conclusions Management of severe fecal incontinence implies a great burden in economic terms. The colostomy is the alternative that generates the most direct cost, followed by SNS and symptomatic treatment (AU)

Cost-effectiveness of sigmoid resection with primary anastomosis or end colostomy for perforated diverticulitis: an analysis of the randomized Ladies trial.

BACKGROUND: Several studies have been published favouring sigmoidectomy with primary anastomosis over Hartmann's procedure for perforated diverticulitis with purulent or faecal peritonitis (Hinchey grade III or IV), but cost-related outcomes were rarely reported. The present study aimed to evaluate costs and cost-effectiveness within the DIVA arm of the Ladies trial. METHODS: This was a cost-effectiveness analysis of the DIVA arm of the multicentre randomized Ladies trial, comparing primary anastomosis over Hartmann's procedure for Hinchey grade III or IV diverticulitis. During 12-month follow-up, data on resource use, indirect costs (Short Form Health and Labour Questionnaire) and quality of life (EuroQol Five Dimensions) were collected prospectively, and analysed according to the modified intention-to-treat principle. Main outcomes were incremental cost-effectiveness (ICER) and cost-utility (ICUR) ratios, expressed as the ratio of incremental costs and the incremental probability of being stoma-free or incremental quality-adjusted life-years respectively. RESULTS: Overall, 130 patients were included, of whom 64 were allocated to primary anastomosis (46 and 18 with Hinchey III and IV disease respectively) and 66 to Hartmann's procedure (46 and 20 respectively). Overall mean costs per patient were lower for primary anastomosis (€20 544, 95 per cent c.i. 19 569 to 21 519) than Hartmann's procedure (€28 670, 26 636 to 30 704), with a mean difference of €-8126 (-14 660 to -1592). The ICER was €-39 094 (95 per cent bias-corrected and accelerated (BCa) c.i. -1213 to -116), indicating primary anastomosis to be more cost-effective. The ICUR was €-101 435 (BCa c.i. -1 113 264 to 251 840). CONCLUSION: Primary anastomosis is more cost-effective than Hartmann's procedure for perforated diverticulitis with purulent or faecal peritonitis.

ANTECEDENTES: Se han publicado varios estudios en favor de la sigmoidectomía con anastomosis primaria (primary anastomosis, PA) sobre la intervención de Hartmann (Hartmann's procedure, HP) para la diverticulitis perforada con peritonitis purulenta o fecal (Hinchey grado III ó IV), pero apenas existe información de los resultados relacionados con el coste. Por lo tanto, el presente estudio tuvo como objetivo evaluar los costes y el coste efectividad del brazo DIVA en el ensayo clínico Ladies. MÉTODOS: Se realizó un análisis de coste-efectividad del brazo DIVA del ensayo clínico multicéntrico y aleatorizado Ladies, que comparó PA y HP para la diverticulitis Hinchey de grado III ó IV. Durante un seguimiento de 12 meses, se recogieron datos prospectivamente del uso de recursos, costes indirectos (SF-HLQ) y calidad de vida (EQ-5D), y se analizaron de acuerdo con una modificación del principio por intención de tratar. Los resultados principales fueron la relación coste-efectividad incremental (incremental cost-effectiveness ratio, ICER) y la relación coste-utilidad incremental (incremental cost-utility ratio, ICUR), expresados como la razón del incremento de costes y el incremento en la probabilidad de no requerir estoma o años de vida ajustados por calidad, respectivamente. RESULTADOS: En total, se incluyeron 130 pacientes, 64 de los cuales fueron asignados a PA (Hinchey III/IV: 46/20) y 66 a HP (Hinchey III/IV: 46/18). Los costes medios globales por paciente fueron más bajos para la PA (€20.544 (i.c. del 95%: 19.569 a 21.519)) en comparación con HP (€ 28.670 (i.c. del 95%: 26.636 a 30.704)), con una diferencia media de €−8.126 (i.c. del 95% −14.660 a −1.592)). Además, se observó un ICER de € −39.094 (95% bias-corrected and accelerated boodstrap confidence interval, BCaCI −1.213 a −116), lo que indica que PA es más coste efectiva. El ICUR fue € −101.435 (BCaCI del 95%: −1.113.264 a 251.840). CONCLUSIÓN: La anastomosis primaria es más rentable que el procedimiento de Hartmann para la diverticulitis perforada con peritonitis purulenta o fecal.

Direct inpatient costs and influencing factors for patients with rectal cancer with low anterior resection: a retrospective observational study at a three-tertiary hospital in Beijing, China.

OBJECTIVES: The aim of the study was to investigate the direct inpatient cost and analyse influencing factors for patients with rectal cancer with low anterior resection in Beijing, China. DESIGN: A retrospective observational study. SETTING: The study was conducted at a three-tertiary oncology institution. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 448 patients who underwent low anterior resection and were diagnosed with rectal cancer from January 2015 to December 2016 at Peking University Cancer Hospital were retrospectively identified. Demographic, clinical and cost data were determined. RESULTS: The median inpatient cost wasï¿¥89 064, with a wide range (ï¿¥46 711-ï¿¥191 329) due to considerable differences in consumables. The material cost accounted for 52.19% and was the highest among all the cost components. Colostomy (OR 4.17; 95% CI 1.79 to 9.71), complications of hypertension (OR 5.30; 95% CI 1.94 to 14.42) and combined with other tumours (OR 2.92; 95% CI 1.12 to 7.60) were risk factors for higher cost, while clinical pathway (OR 0.10; 95% CI 0.03 to 0.35), real-time settlement (OR 0.26; 95% CI 0.10 to 0.68) and combined with cardiovascular disease (OR 0.09; 95% CI 0.02 to 0.52) were protective determinants. CONCLUSIONS: This approach is an effective way to relieve the economic burden of patients with cancer by promoting the clinical pathway, optimising the payment scheme and controlling the complication. Further research focused on the full-cost investigation in different stages of rectal cancer based on a longitudinal design is necessary.

Prophylactic mesh reinforcement of stomas: a cost-effectiveness meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials.

BACKGROUND: Previous meta-analyses of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) have suggested a reduction in parastomal hernias (PSH) with prophylactic mesh. However, concerns persist regarding variably supportive evidence and cost. We performed an updated systematic review and meta-analysis to inform a novel cost-effectiveness analysis. METHODS: The PubMed, EMBASE and Cochrane Centre Register of Controlled Trials databases were searched (February 2018). We included RCTs assessing mesh reinforcement during stoma formation. We assessed PSH rates, subsequent repair, complications and operative time. Odds ratios (OR) and numbers needed to treat (NNT) were generated on intention to treat (ITT) and per protocol (PP) bases. These then informed cost analysis using 2017 UK/USA reimbursement rates and stoma care costs. RESULTS: Eleven RCTs were included. Four hundred fifty-three patients were randomised to mesh (PP 412), with 454 controls (PP 413). Six studies used synthetic meshes, three composite and two biological (91.7% colostomies; 3.64% ileostomies, 4.63% not specified). Reductions were seen in the number of hernias detected clinically and on computed tomography scan. For the former, ITT OR was 0.23 (95% confidence interval 0.11-0.51; p = 0.0003; n = 11); NNT 4.17 (2.56-10.0), with fewer subsequent repairs: OR 0.29 (0.13-0.64; p = 0.002; n = 7; NNT16.7 (10.0-33.3). Reductions persisted for synthetic and composite meshes. Operative time was similar, with zero incidence of mesh infection/fistulation, and fewer peristomal complications. Synthetic mesh demonstrated a favourable cost profile, with composite approximately cost neutral, and biological incurring net costs. CONCLUSIONS: Reinforcing elective stomas with mesh (primarily synthetic) reduces subsequent PSH rates, complications, repairs and saves money. We recommend that future RCTs compare mesh subtypes, techniques, and applicability to emergency stomas.

Sociodemographics and the impact of a colostomy to indigent families and children with colorectal disorders in Honduras.

INTRODUCTION: To describe the social impact of a colostomy on indigent families and affected children with anorectal malformations (ARM) or Hirschsprung's disease (HD) in San Pedro Sula, Honduras, we specifically targeted very low-income households that attended an international medical brigade for ARM and HD in 2016. METHODS: The impact of a colostomy on the families and children's daily life was analyzed by personal interviews with a questionnaire. RESULTS: Twenty families with children were included in the study. Children's age ranged from 5 months to 27years (median 2.31). Annual income was reported to be less than $500 USD in 42.8%. Impairment of daily family life by the colostomy was reported in 85%. Parents of preschool children younger than 7 years are more affected than parents of older children, whereas children older than 7 years reported on more social problems. Moreover, 50% of the school-aged children did not attend school owing to issues directly related to their colostomy. DISCUSSION: Colostomies for children in the low middle-income country Honduras have significant social and economic implications for low-income families. In ARM and HD, medical brigades can offer help for definitive surgical repair to overcome and shorten the period of a colostomy presence to improve physical and psychosocial impairment, especially when performed before the children reach the school age. TYPE OF STUDY: Cost Effectiveness Study. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: II.

Costs and resource use following defunctioning stoma in low anterior resection for cancer - A long-term analysis of a randomized multicenter trial.

BACKGROUND: Defunctioning stoma in low anterior resection (LAR) for rectal cancer can prevent major complications, but overall cost-effectiveness for the healthcare provider is unknown. This study compared inpatient healthcare resources and costs within 5 years of LAR between two randomized groups of patients undergoing LAR with and without defunctioning stoma. METHOD: Five-year follow-up of a randomized, multicenter trial on LAR (NCT 00636948) with (stoma; n = 116) or without (no stoma; n = 118) defunctioning stoma comparing inpatient healthcare resources and costs. Unplanned stoma formation, days with stoma, length of hospital stay, reoperations, and total associated inpatient costs were analyzed. RESULTS: Average costs were € 21.663 per patient with defunctioning stoma and € 15.922 per patient without defunctioning stoma within 5 years of LAR, resulting in an average cost-saving of € 5.741. There was no difference between groups regarding the total number of days with any stoma (stoma = 33 398 vs. no stoma = 34 068). The total number of unplanned reoperations were 70 (no stoma) and 32 (stoma); p < 0.001. In the group randomized to no stoma at LAR, 30.5% (36/118) required an unplanned stoma later. CONCLUSION: Randomization to defunctioning stoma in LAR was more expensive than no stoma, despite the cost-savings associated with a reduced frequency of anastomotic leakage. Both groups required the same total number of days with a stoma within five years of LAR.

Health economic analysis of laparoscopic lavage versus Hartmann's procedure for diverticulitis in the randomized DILALA trial.

BACKGROUND: Open surgery with resection and colostomy (Hartmann's procedure) has been the standard treatment for perforated diverticulitis with purulent peritonitis. In recent years laparoscopic lavage has emerged as an alternative, with potential benefits for patients with purulent peritonitis, Hinchey grade III. The aim of this study was to compare laparoscopic lavage and Hartmann's procedure with health economic evaluation within the framework of the DILALA (DIverticulitis - LAparoscopic LAvage versus resection (Hartmann's procedure) for acute diverticulitis with peritonitis) trial. METHODS: Clinical effectiveness and resource use were derived from the DILALA trial and unit costs from Swedish sources. Costs were analysed from the perspective of the healthcare sector. The study period was divided into short-term analysis (base-case A), within 12 months, and long-term analysis (base-case B), from inclusion in the trial throughout the patient's expected life. RESULTS: The study included 43 patients who underwent laparoscopic lavage and 40 who had Hartmann's procedure in Denmark and Sweden during 2010-2014. In base-case A, the difference in mean cost per patient between laparoscopic lavage and Hartmann's procedure was €-8983 (95 per cent c.i. -16 232 to -1735). The mean(s.d.) costs per patient in base-case B were €25 703(27 544) and €45 498(38 928) for laparoscopic lavage and Hartmann's procedure respectively, resulting in a difference of €-19 794 (95 per cent c.i. -34 657 to -4931). The results were robust as demonstrated in sensitivity analyses. CONCLUSION: The significant cost reduction in this study, together with results of safety and efficacy from RCTs, support the routine use of laparoscopic lavage as treatment for complicated diverticulitis with purulent peritonitis.

[Single port laparoscopic colostomy using the glove technique]. / Colostomía laparoscópica por puerto único con técnica de guante.

The single port surgery with glove technique is a novel process, suitable to the present day economic and technological moment. Colostomies are surgical interventions suitable to its application. We describe the surgical method and outcome of patients who underwent colostomy by single port glove technique within the years 2011 and 2012, in two hospitals in Asturias, Spain. We carried out six sigmoid colostomies. Four patients had tumoral pathology, another a perineal necrotizing fasciitis, and the sixth, a patient with Crohn's disease and complex perianal fistulas. The average age of the patients, four men and two women, was 54 years (range 42-67 years). The average intervention time was 42 minutes (range 30-65 minutes). There were no complications during the surgery or in the postoperative period. In our facilities material expenditure was reduced to half as regards other conventional single port devices. The glove technique represents the most economic and least invasive approach for the surgical procedure of stomas, in our experience considered a simple, safe and easily reproducible technique.

Stoma-Const--the technical aspects of stoma construction: study protocol for a randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: The construction of a colostomy is a common procedure, but the evidence for the different parts of the construction of the colostomy is lacking. Parastomal hernia is a common complication of colostomy formation. The aim of this study is to standardise the colostomy formation and to compare three types of colostomy formation (one including a mesh) regarding the development of parastomal hernia. METHODS/DESIGN: Stoma-Const is a Scandinavian randomised trial comparing three types of colostomy formation. The primary endpoint is parastomal herniation as shown by clinical examination or CT scan within one year. Secondary endpoints are re-admission rate, postoperative complications (classified according to Clavien-Dindo), stoma-related complications (registered in the case record form at stoma care nurse follow-up), total length of hospital stay during 12 months, health-related quality of life and health economic analysis as well as re-operation rate and mortality within 30 days and 12 months of primary surgery. Follow-up is scheduled at 4-6 weeks, and 6 and 12 months. Inclusion is set at 240 patients. DISCUSSION: Parastomal hernia is a common complication after colostomy formation. Several studies have been performed with the aim to reduce the rate of this complication. However, none are fully conclusive and data on quality of life and health economy are lacking. The aim of this study is to develop new standardised techniques for colostomy formation and evaluate this with patient reported outcomes as well as clinical and radiological assessment. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov, NCT01694238.2012-09-24.

Colostomía laparoscópica por puerto único con técnica de guante / Single port laparoscopic colostomy using the glove technique

La cirugía por puerto único con técnica de guante (glove port) es un abordaje adecuado al momento económico y tecnológico que vivimos. Entre las intervenciones susceptibles de su aplicación está la realización de colostomías. Describimos la técnica quirúrgica y resultados de los pacientes a los que se realizó colostomía por puerto único con técnica de guante, a lo largo de los años 2011 y 2012, en dos hospitales de Asturias, España. Realizamos seis colostomías sigmoideas. Cuatro pacientes presentaban enfermedad tumoral, otro caso fue por una fascitis necrosante perineal, y el sexto un paciente con enfermedad de Crohn y fístulas perianales complejas. La edad media de los pacientes, cuatro hombres y dos mujeres, fue de 54 años (rango 42-67 años). El tiempo medio de intervención fue de 42 minutos (rango 30-65 minutos). No hubo complicaciones durante la cirugía ni en el postoperatorio. En nuestro medio, el gasto en material se redujo a la mitad con respecto a otros dispositivos convencionales de puerto único. La técnica de guante representa el abordaje por puerto único más económico y mínimamente invasivo para la realización de estomas, siendo en nuestra experiencia una técnica sencilla, segura y fácilmente reproducible.

The single port surgery with glove technique is a novel process, suitable to the present day economic and technological moment .Colostomies are surgical interventions suitable to its application. We describe the surgical method and outcome of patients who underwent colostomy by single port glove technique within the years 2011 and 2012, in two hospitals in Asturias, Spain. We carried out six sigmoid colostomies. Four patients had tumoral pathology, another a perineal necrotizing fasciitis, and the sixth, a patient with Crohn's disease and complex peri-anal fistulas. The average age of the patients, four men and two women, was 54 years (range 42-67 years). The average intervention time was 42 minutes (range 30-65 minutes). There were no complications during the surgery or in the postoperative period. In our facilities material expenditure was reduced to half as regards other conventional single port devices. The glove technique represents the most economic and least invasive approach for the surgical procedure of stomas, in our experience considered a simple, safe and easily reproducible technique.

Do geography and resources influence the need for colostomy in Hirschsprung's disease and anorectal malformations? A Canadian association of paediatric surgeons: association of paediatric surgeons of Nigeria survey.

BACKGROUND: This survey compared surgical management of Hirschsprung's disease (HD) and anorectal malformations (ARM) in high and low resource settings. MATERIALS AND METHODS: An online survey was sent to 208 members of the Canadian Association of Paediatric Surgeons (CAPS) and the Association of Paediatric Surgeons of Nigeria (APSON). RESULTS: The response rate was 76.8% with 127 complete surveys (APSON 34, CAPS 97). Only 29.5% of APSON surgeons had frozen section available for diagnosis of HD. They were more likely to choose full thickness rectal biopsy (APSON 70.6% vs. CAPS 9.4%, P < 0.05) and do an initial colostomy for HD (APSON 23.5% vs. CAPS 0%, P < 0.05). Experience with trans-anal pull-through for HD was similar in both groups (APSON 76.5%, CAPS 66.7%). CAPS members practising in the United States were more likely to perform a one-stage pull-through for HD during the initial hospitalization (USA 65.4% vs. Canada 28.3%, P < 0.05). The frequency of colostomy in females with vestibular fistula varied widely independent of geography. APSON surgeons were less likely to have enterostomal therapists and patient education resources. CONCLUSIONS: Local resources which vary by geographic location affect the management of HD and ARM including colostomy. Collaboration between CAPS and APSON members could address resource and educational needs to improve patient care.

Cost effectiveness of mesh prophylaxis to prevent parastomal hernia in patients undergoing permanent colostomy for rectal cancer.

BACKGROUND: Parastomal hernia (PSH) is common after stoma formation. Studies have reported that mesh prophylaxis reduces PSH, but there are no cost-effectiveness data. Our objective was to determine the cost effectiveness of mesh prophylaxis vs no prophylaxis to prevent PSH in patients undergoing abdominoperineal resection with permanent colostomy for rectal cancer. STUDY DESIGN: Using a cohort Markov model, we modeled the costs and effectiveness of mesh prophylaxis vs no prophylaxis at the index operation in a cohort of 60-year-old patients undergoing abdominoperineal resection for rectal cancer during a time horizon of 5 years. Costs were expressed in 2012 Canadian dollars (CAD$) and effectiveness in quality-adjusted life years. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed. RESULTS: In patients with stage I to III rectal cancer, prophylactic mesh was dominant (less costly and more effective) compared with no mesh. In patients with stage IV disease, mesh prophylaxis was associated with higher cost (CAD$495 more) and minimally increased effectiveness (0.05 additional quality-adjusted life years), resulting in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of CAD$10,818 per quality-adjusted life year. On sensitivity analyses, the decision was sensitive to the probability of mesh infection and the cost of the mesh, and method of diagnosing PSH. CONCLUSIONS: In patients undergoing abdominoperineal resection with permanent colostomy for rectal cancer, mesh prophylaxis might be the less costly and more effective strategy compared with no mesh to prevent PSH in patients with stage I to III disease, and might be cost effective in patients with stage IV disease.

Economic analysis of medical management applied for left colostomy.

PURPOSE: This paper presents an analysis of surgical treatment costs for left colostomy, aiming to calculate a medium cost per procedure and to identify the means to maximize the economic management of this type of surgicale procedure. MATERIALS AND METHOD: A retrospective study was conducted on a group of 8 patients hospitalized in the 4th Surgery Department,Emergency University Hospital Bucharest, during the year 2012 for left colic neoplasms with obstruction signs that were operated on with a left colostomy. The followed parameters in the studied group of patients were represented by medical expenses, divided in: preoperative, intra-operative and immediate postoperative (postop. hospitalization). RESULTS: Two major types of colostomy were performed: left loop colostomy with intact tumour for 6 patients and left end colostomy and tumour resection (Hartmann's procedure) for 2 patients. The medium cost of this type of surgical intervention was 4396.807 RON, representing 1068.742 euro. Statistic data analysis didn't reveal average costs to vary with the type of procedure. The age of the study subjects was between 49 and 88, with an average of 61 years, without it being possible to establish a correlation between patient age and the level of medical spendings. CONCLUSIONS: Reducing the costs involved by left colostomy can be efficiently done by decreasing the number of days of hospitalisation in the following ways: preoperative preparation and assessment of the subject in an outpatient regimen; the accuracy of the surgical procedure with the decrease of early postoperative complications and antibiotherapy- the second major cause of increased postoperative costs.

Outcomes and costs of elective surgery for diverticular disease: a comparison with other diseases requiring colectomy.

OBJECTIVE: To compare outcomes and costs of elective surgery for diverticular disease (DD) with those of other diseases commonly requiring colectomy. DESIGN: Multivariable analyses using the Nationwide Inpatient Sample to compare outcomes across primary diagnosis while adjusting for age, sex, race, year of admission, and comorbid disease. SETTING: A sample of US hospital admissions from 2003-2009. PATIENTS: All adult patients (≥18 years) undergoing elective resection of the descending colon or subtotal colectomy who had a primary diagnosis of DD, colon cancer (CC), or inflammatory bowel disease (IBD). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: In-hospital mortality, postoperative complications, ostomy placement, length of stay, and hospital charges. RESULTS: Of the 74,879 patients, 50.52% had DD, 43.48% had CC, and 6.00% had IBD. After adjusting for other variables, patients with DD were significantly more likely than patients with CC to experience in-hospital mortality (adjusted odds ratio, 1.90; 95% CI, 1.37-2.63; P < .001), develop a postoperative infection (1.67; 1.48-1.89; P < .001), and have an ostomy placed (1.87; 1.65-2.11; P < .001). The adjusted total hospital charges for patients with DD were $6678.78 higher (95% CI, $5722.12-$7635.43; P < .001) and length of stay was 1 day longer (95% CI, 0.86-1.14; P < .001) compared with patients with CC. Patients with IBD had the highest in-hospital mortality, highest rates of complications and ostomy placement, longest length of stay, and highest hospital charges. CONCLUSIONS: Despite undergoing the same procedure, patients with DD have significantly worse and more costly outcomes after elective colectomy compared with patients with CC but better than patients with IBD. These relatively poor outcomes should be recognized when considering routine elective colectomy after successful nonoperative management of acute diverticulitis.

Diverticular disease hospital cost impact analysis: evaluation of testings and surgical procedures in inpatient and outpatient admissions.

BACKGROUND: Diverticular Disease (DD) is a common condition in Italy and in other western countries. There is not much data concerning DD's impact on budget and activity in hospitals. METHODS: The aim is to detect the clinical workload and the financial impact of diverticular disease in hospitals.Retrospective observational study of all patients treated for diverticular disease during the period of seven years in AOU Federico II. Analysis of inpatient and outpatient investigations, treatment, hospitalization and financial refunds. RESULTS: A total of 738 patients were treated and 840 hospital discharge records were registered. There were a total number of 4101 hospitalization days and 753 outpatient accesses. The investigations generated were 416 endoscopies, 197 abdominal CT scans, 177 abdominal ultrasound scans, 109 X-rays tests. A total of 193 surgical operations were performed. The total cost of this activity was € 1.656.802 or 0.2% of the total budget of the hospital. € 1.346.218, were attributable to the department of general surgery, 0.9% of the department's budget . CONCLUSIONS: The limited impact of diverticular disease on the budget and activity of AOU Federico II of Naples is mainly due to the absence of an emergency department.

Endoscopic stenting versus surgical colostomy for the management of malignant colonic obstruction: comparison of hospital costs and clinical outcomes.

BACKGROUND: Although stent placement is increasingly performed, colostomy still is considered the gold standard for emergent relief of malignant colonic obstruction (MCO). This study aimed to compare hospital costs and clinical outcomes between patients undergoing colostomy and those undergoing stenting for the management of MCO. METHODS: A retrospective claims analysis of the Medicare Provider Analysis and Review (MedPAR) data set was conducted to identify inpatient hospitalizations for colostomy or stent placement for the treatment of colon cancer (2007-2008). The outcomes evaluated using MedPAR compared the total length of hospital stay (LOS) and the costs associated with both techniques. Because MedPAR is a claims data set that does not provide outcomes at a patient level, a single-institution retrospective case-control study was conducted in which each stent placement patient was matched with two colostomy patients during the same period. Outcome measures (institutional data) were used to compare rates of treatment success, postprocedure LOS, and reinterventions between the two cohorts. RESULTS: The MedPAR data evaluated 778 stent placements and 5,868 colostomy hospitalizations. There were no differences in gender, age distribution, or comorbidity between the two groups. Compared with colostomy, the median LOS (8 vs. 12 days; p<0.0001) and the median cost ($15,071 vs. $24,695; p<0.001) per claim were significantly less for stent placement. Stent placement was more commonly performed at urban versus rural hospitals (84% vs. 16%; p<0.0001), teaching versus nonteaching hospitals (56% vs. 44%; p=0.0058) and larger versus smaller institutions (mean bed capacity, 331 vs. 227; p<0.0001). The institution data included 12 patients who underwent stent placement and 24 who underwent colostomy. Although both methods were technically successful, the median postprocedure LOS (2.17 vs. 10.58 days; p=0.0004) and the rate of readmissions for complications (0% vs. 25%; p=0.01) were significantly lower for stent placement. CONCLUSION: Although the technical and clinical outcomes for colostomy and stent placement appear comparable, stent placement is less costly and associated with shorter LOS and fewer complications. Dissemination of stent placement beyond large teaching hospitals located in urban areas as a treatment for MCO is important given its implications for patient care and resource use.

Cost-effectiveness analysis on spinal anesthesia versus local anesthesia plus sedation for loop colostomy closure.

CONTEXT: Studies in the area of health economics are still poorly explored and it is known that the cost savings in this area is becoming more necessary, provided that strict criteria. OBJECTIVE: To perform a cost-effectiveness analysis of spinal anesthesia versus local anesthesia plus sedation for loop colostomy closure. METHODS: This was a randomized clinical trial with 50 patients undergoing loop colostomy closure either under spinal anesthesia (n = 25) or under local anesthesia plus sedation (n = 25). The duration of the operation, time spent in the post-anesthesia recovery room, pain, postoperative complications, length of hospital stay, laboratory and imaging examinations and need for rehospitalization and reoperation were analyzed. The direct medical costs were analyzed. A decision tree model was constructed. The outcome measures were mean cost and cost per local and systemic postoperative complications avoided. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios were presented. RESULTS: Duration of operation: 146 +/- 111.5 min. vs 105 +/- 23.6 min. (P = 0.012); mean time spent in post-anesthesia recovery room: 145 +/- 110.8 min. vs 36.8 +/- 34.6 min. (P<0.001). Immediate postoperative pain was lower with local anesthesia plus sedation (P<0.05). Local and systemic complications were fewer with local anesthesia plus sedation (P = 0.209). Hospitalization + rehospitalization: 4.5 +/- 4.1 days vs 2.9 +/- 2.2 days (P<0.0001); mean spending per patient: R$ 5,038.05 vs 2,665.57 (P<0.001). Incremental cost-effectiveness ratio: R$ -474.78, indicating that the strategy with local anesthesia plus sedation is cost saving. CONCLUSION: In the present investigation, loop colostomy closure under local anesthesia plus sedation was effective and appeared to be a dominant strategy, compared with the same surgical procedure under spinal anesthesia.

Cost-effectiveness analysis on spinal anesthesia versus local anesthesia plus sedation for loop colostomy closure / Análise de custo-efetividade da raquianestesia versus anestesia local associada à sedação para o fechamento de colostomia em alça

CONTEXT: Studies in the area of health economics are still poorly explored and it is known that the cost savings in this area is becoming more necessary, provided that strict criteria. OBJECTIVE: To perform a cost-effectiveness analysis of spinal anesthesia versus local anesthesia plus sedation for loop colostomy closure. METHODS: This was a randomized clinical trial with 50 patients undergoing loop colostomy closure either under spinal anesthesia (n = 25) or under local anesthesia plus sedation (n = 25). The duration of the operation, time spent in the post-anesthesia recovery room, pain, postoperative complications, length of hospital stay, laboratory and imaging examinations and need for rehospitalization and reoperation were analyzed. The direct medical costs were analyzed. A decision tree model was constructed. The outcome measures were mean cost and cost per local and systemic postoperative complications avoided. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios were presented. RESULTS: Duration of operation: 146 ± 111.5 min. vs 105 ± 23.6 min. (P = 0.012); mean time spent in post-anesthesia recovery room: 145 ± 110.8 min. vs 36.8 ± 34.6 min. (P<0.001). Immediate postoperative pain was lower with local anesthesia plus sedation (P<0.05). Local and systemic complications were fewer with local anesthesia plus sedation (P = 0.209). Hospitalization + rehospitalization: 4.5 ± 4.1 days vs 2.9 ± 2.2 days (P<0.0001); mean spending per patient: R$ 5,038.05 vs 2,665.57 (P<0.001). Incremental cost-effectiveness ratio: R$ -474.78, indicating that the strategy with local anesthesia plus sedation is cost saving. CONCLUSION: In the present investigation, loop colostomy closure under local anesthesia plus sedation was effective and appeared to be a dominant strategy, compared with the same surgical procedure under spinal anesthesia.

OBJETIVO: Análise de custo-efetividade entre fechamento de colostomia e m alça sob raquianestesia versus anestesia local associada à sedação. MÉTODOS: Ensaio clínico randomizado com 50 pacientes para fechamento de colostomia em alça, sob raquianestesia (n = 25) e sob anestesia local com sedação (n = 25). Avaliaram-se tempo operatório e de sala de recuperação pós-anestésica, dor, complicações pós-operatórias, tempo de internação, exames laboratoriais e de imagens, reoperações e reinternações. Foi feita análise de custos diretos médicos. A medida de desfecho foi: complicações pós-operatórias locais e sistêmicas. Aplicaram-se razão incremental e árvore de decisão. RESULTADOS: Tempo operatório (146 ± 111,5 min vs 105 ± 23,6 min; P = 0,012), tempo médio de sala de recuperação pós-anestésica (145 ± 110,8 min vs 36,8 ± 34,6 min, P<0,001). Dor no pós-operatório imediato em favor da anestesia local (P<0,05). Complicações pós-operatórias locais e sistêmicas (P = 0,209) em favor da anestesia local. Internação + reinternações (4,5 ± 4,1 dias vs 2,9 ± 2,2 dias; P<0,0001), valor médio gasto por paciente (R$ 5.038,05 vs R$ 2.665,57; P<0,001). Razão de custo-efetividade: -R$ 474,78, indicando que a estratégia é dominante. CONCLUSÃO: Na presente investigação o fechamento de colostomia em alça sob anestesia local associada à sedação foi eficaz e apresentou boa relação de custo-efetividade em relação ao mesmo procedimento cirúrgico sob raquianestesia.

Caring for children with colorectal disease in the context of limited resources.

The management of patients with colorectal disease in the pediatric population is challenging. Such management is all the more challenging when facing the constraints imposed by an environment with limited clinical resources. Three types of colorectal problems are highlighted in this article: anorectal malformations, Hirschsprung's disease, and acquired rectovaginal fistula in the human immunodeficiency virus-positive population. Through the use of illustrative cases, the authors discuss the pitfalls and challenges encountered in the diagnosis, treatment, and appropriate disposition of these patients. The bulk of the experience used to write this article was acquired in low- and middle-income countries in Africa. The authors hope that the lessons learned will help others manage such patients in the context of limited resources, but recognize that challenges will vary from place to place. There is no substitute for local, contextual expertise.

Stoma care nursing management: cost implications in community care.

Successfully rehabilitating the stoma patient in the community means continuing the care provided by the hospital and preparing the patient for this new phase of life. It is well documented that this transition from hospital to home can often be a difficult time for the stoma patient and that home visits and ongoing support from the district nursing team are needed for many patients in the long term. This article aims to help community nurses understand the needs of the stoma patient in their homes and looks at the current situation, including costs, of supplying stoma appliances in the community.