Cirugía de las hernias: efectividad y coste para el sostenimiento del sistema sanitario / Hernia surgery: effectiveness and cost for the maintenance of the health system

Resumen Introducción: Las hernias son patologías muy frecuentes en un Servicio de Cirugía General (SCG); su tratamiento y costes son muy diferentes, dependiendo del cirujano, si hay hospitalización (CH) o cirugía mayor ambulatoria (CMA). Objetivo principal es el estudio de costes-resultados y de coste-efectividad de las hernias de pared abdominal (no pericolostómicas) realizadas por el SCG. Materiales y Método: Estudio descriptivo, longitudinal, observacional y retrospectivo. Intervenidas 370 hernias de pared abdominal, del 1 de octubre de 2015 al 30 de septiembre de 2016; seguimiento postquirúrgico hasta el 30 de octubre 2016 (1 a 12 meses). Resultados: 79,4% varones, media 59,95 años, 51,90% ASA II, 55,8% anestesia local, 59,72% hernias inguinales, 36,94% hernias inguinales unilaterales indirectas, 55,17 minutos por intervención, 54,44% por CMA, 4,77 días de estancia media en ingresados. Complicaciones perioperatorias 2,3%, tempranas 4,8% (5 reintervenciones) y tardías 12,8% (3 reintervenciones por recidiva). Altas 95,41%, tiempo medio 6,59 semanas. Coste de material de 109,87 € (hernia inguinal simple) hasta 370,41 € (eventración). Coste mediana quirófano 338,80 €. Coste/día CMA 807,30 € y con ingreso 1056,03 €. Mediana coste de hernia inguinal simple 422,69 € y de eventración 709,89 €. Mediana coste por complicación de hernia inguinal 1405,81 € y de eventración 8350,88 €. Mediana coste por proceso con CMA 1213,98 € y con ingreso 3689,80 €. Conclusión: Intervenciones de hernia inguinal unilateral simple, crural y umbilical, con técnica libre de tensión, material protésico, sin drenaje, CMA, anestesia local (con/sin sedación) y sin complicaciones resultan las más coste-efectivas (mejor relación coste-benefcio y coste-efectividad).

Introduction: Hernias are very frequent pathologies in a General Surgery Service (GSS); its treatment and costs are very different, depending on the surgeon, if there is admission (SH) or major outpatient surgery (MOS). A) Main objective. Study costs of (non-pericolostomic) abdominal wall hernia surgical procedures in the GSC (cost-outcome ratio and the cost-efectiveness). Materials and Method: Descriptive, longitudinal, observational and retrospective study. Abdominal wall hernias treated between 1st October, 2015 and 30th September, 2016; after surgery follow up until 30th October, 2016 (1 to 12 months). In total 370 hernia surgeries were performed. Results: 79.4% of males, mean 59.95 years, 51.90% of ASA II, 55.8% local anesthesia, 59.72% inguinal hernias, 36.94% indirect unilateral inguinal hernias, 55.17 minutes for surgeon, 54.44% for MOS, 4.77 days of average stay in admitted patients. Perioperative complications 2.3%, early 4.8% (with 5 reoperations) and late 12.8% (3 reinterventions due to relapse). 95.41% discharge, mean time 6.59 weeks. Material costs vary from €109.87 (simple inguinal hernia) to €370.41 (eventrations). Median surgery room cost €338.80. Cost/day MOS €807.30 and with income €1056.03. Median cost of simple inguinal hernia €422.69 and eventration €709.89. Median cost due to inguinal hernia complication €1405.81 and eventration €8350.88. Median cost per process MOS € 1213.98 and that of SH €3689.80. Conclusion: The interventions of simple unilateral inguinal hernia, crural and umbilical, using a tension-free technique, prosthetic material, without drainage, MOS, local anesthesia (with/without sedation) and without complications are the most cost-efective (better cost-beneft and cost-efectiveness ratio).

Use of commercial mesh for hernia repair in a low resource setting: experience after 500 cases.

BACKGROUND: The use of mesh has revolutionized the management of hernias in many parts of the world. There is, however, limited experience on its use in sub-Saharan Africa. This study describes a single hospital experience after 500 cases of mesh hernia repairs in a sub-Saharan African country. METHODS: We reviewed the records of the first 500 cases of abdominal wall hernia operations performed using commercial mesh since year 2007. Socio-demographic characteristics, hernia type, method of repair and outcome data were analyzed and presented as descriptive statistics. RESULTS: The first 500 cases of mesh hernia repairs were performed between 2007 and 2017 during which a total of 1,175 hernia operations were carried out, mesh repair accounting for 42.5% of the total. There was a progressive rise in the uptake of mesh repairs over time, with mesh repairs overtaking tissue based repairs in the last few years of the review. Inguinal hernia was by far the commonest indication for mesh use (80.4%), followed by incisional hernia (9%). Polypropylene mesh was the most common type of mesh used in about 96.2% of cases. Overall, there were seven recurrences (1.4%) at a mean follow-up period of 15.3 months (1-108 months) CONCLUSION: In spite of resource limitations, the use of mesh for hernia repairs continues to rise and has overtaken tissue-based repairs in a sub-Saharan African setting. Results show good outcomes justifying continued use.

A direct comparison of robotic and laparoscopic hernia repair: patient-reported outcomes and cost analysis.

PURPOSE: Hernia repair is one of the most commonly performed surgeries in the United States. Since the introduction of the Da Vinci robot, robot-assisted hernia repairs have become more common. In this study we aim to directly compare robotic and laparoscopic hernia repairs as well as explore potential cost differences. We hypothesize that robot-assisted hernia repairs are associated with better patient-reported outcomes. METHODS: We conducted retrospective review to create a cohort study of 53 robotic (37 inguinal and 16 ventral) and 101 laparoscopic (68 inguinal and 33 ventral) hernia repairs. Patient-reported outcomes were measured using the Carolinas Comfort Scale (CCS). Operative details were examined, and a cost analysis was performed. RESULTS: Combining both hernia types together as well as looking at inguinal and ventral repairs separately, we found that there was no difference in hernia recurrence or 1-year CCS between robotic and laparoscopic hernia repair. For ventral hernia repairs alone, robotic procedure was associated with a decreased length of stay. We found that our robotic cases did have longer operative times and higher costs. The operative times did decrease to a length comparable to that of the laparoscopic cases as experience operating with the robot increased. CONCLUSION: In comparison to laparoscopic hernia repair, robotic hernia repair does not improve long-term patient-reported surgical outcomes. However, it does increase the cost of the operation and, in general, result in longer operative times.

Efficiency of care and cost for common emergency general surgery conditions: Comparison by surgeon training and practice.

BACKGROUND: Our institutional emergency general surgery service is staffed by both trauma and critical care-trained surgeons and other boarded general surgeons and subspecialists. We compared efficiency of care for common emergency general surgery conditions between trauma and critical care-trained surgeons and boarded general surgeons and subspecialists. METHODS: Adults admitted between February 2014 and May 2017 with acute appendicitis, acute cholecystitis, intestinal obstruction, incarcerated hernia, or other acute abdominal diagnoses seen by emergency general surgery service were included. Demographic characteristics, consulting surgeon, operations, outcomes, and cost data were obtained. RESULTS: A total of 1,363 patients were included: 384 (28.2%) with acute appendicitis, 477 (35.0%) with acute cholecystitis, 406 (29.8%) with intestinal obstruction, 22 (1.6%) with incarcerated hernia, and 74 (5.4%) with other acute abdominal diagnoses. Trauma and critical care-trained surgeons saw 836 (61.3%) patients. There was no difference in operative management between the two groups, however, trauma and critical care-trained surgeons had significantly less time to the operative room (7.0 vs 12.9 hours; P < .001), without a difference in duration of stay or costs. The subgroups of acute appendicitis and acute cholecystitis when treated by trauma and critical care-trained surgeons had less time to the operative room (8.4 vs 17.4 hours; P < .001), shorter hospital stay (2.5 vs 2.8 days; P = .021), and less emergency department cost ($822 vs $876; P = .012). CONCLUSION: Compared with boarded general surgeons and subspecialists, trauma and critical care-trained surgeons provide more efficient care for common emergency general surgery conditions, with less time from consultation to the operative room.

Adoption of robotics in a general surgery residency program: at what cost?

BACKGROUND: Robotic technology is increasingly being utilized by general surgeons. However, the impact of introducing robotics to surgical residency has not been examined. This study aims to assess the financial costs and training impact of introducing robotics at an academic general surgery residency program. METHODS: All patients who underwent laparoscopic or robotic cholecystectomy, ventral hernia repair (VHR), and inguinal hernia repair (IHR) at our institution from 2011-2015 were identified. The effect of robotic surgery on laparoscopic case volume was assessed with linear regression analysis. Resident participation, operative time, hospital costs, and patient charges were also evaluated. RESULTS: We identified 2260 laparoscopic and 139 robotic operations. As the volume of robotic cases increased, the number of laparoscopic cases steadily decreased. Residents participated in all laparoscopic cases and 70% of robotic cases but operated from the robot console in only 21% of cases. Mean operative time was increased for robotic cholecystectomy (+22%), IHR (+55%), and VHR (+61%). Financial analysis revealed higher median hospital costs per case for robotic cholecystectomy (+$411), IHR (+$887), and VHR (+$1124) as well as substantial associated fixed costs. CONCLUSIONS: Introduction of robotic surgery had considerable negative impact on laparoscopic case volume and significantly decreased resident participation. Increased operative time and hospital costs are substantial. An institution must be cognizant of these effects when considering implementing robotics in departments with a general surgery residency program.

If time matters: a multicenter review of minimally-invasive hernia repair in 7176 cases.

BACKGROUND: In endoscopic hernia repair totally extraperitoneal approach (TEP) and transabdominal preperitoneal approach (TAPP) are seen as equivalent surgical techniques in quality, but not in procedure-time. METHODS: We compared the two most common procedures in endoscopic hernia surgery. Focusing on the duration of the surgical procedure, we analyzed 7176 endoscopic hernia operations in 25 hospitals retrospectively and compared it to the literature. RESULTS: In our study TEP (N.=2799) took on average 59 minutes, TAPP (N.=4377) took 67.5 minutes, thus with a significant difference (P=0.043). In high volume centres this difference was even bigger. As there are few consistent advantages of one of the procedures in general, the procedure' s duration becomes more important. CONCLUSIONS: If time is the main reason, the TEP procedure takes on average 8.5 minutes less time, so it can be more cost-effective.

The impact of healthcare rationing on elective and emergency hernia repair.

PURPOSE: In 2011 the local clinical commissioning group introduced a policy restricting funding for elective hernia repairs. Anecdotally, it was felt that this resulted in an increased number of emergency hernia repairs in our trust. Our primary objective was to assess whether this was actually the case. Our secondary objective was to quantify the risks of non-elective hernia repair. METHODS: We performed a retrospective cohort study, analysing all hernia surgeries performed between 2010 and 2013. The data were obtained from the trust Patient Information System. A total of 2556 patients underwent repair of inguinal, umbilical, incisional, femoral or ventral hernias over this time. RESULTS: As the policy intended, the number of elective hernia repairs reduced from 857 over 12 months before the funding restrictions to 606 in the same period afterwards (p < 0.001). Over the same time period, however, a significant rise in total emergency hernia repairs was demonstrated, increasing from 98 to 150 (p < 0.001). 30-day readmission rates also increased from 5.1 % before the policy introduction to 8.5 % afterwards (p = 0.006). In our data, the rate of bowel resection rises from 0.97 to 12.9 % for emergency operation compared to elective hernia repair (p < 0.001), while the median length of stay rises from less than 24 h to 3 days. CONCLUSIONS: Our data suggest that the funding restrictions introduced in 2011 were followed by a statistically significant and unintended increase in emergency hernia repairs in our trust, with associated increased risks to patient safety.

Patient perceptions on physician reimbursement in plastic surgery.

BACKGROUND: Public perception on physician reimbursement may be that considerable payments are received for procedures: a direct contrast to the actual decline. We aim to investigate patient perceptions toward plastic surgeon reimbursements from insurance companies. METHODS: A survey of 4 common, single-staged procedures was administered to 140 patients. Patients were asked for their opinion on current insurance company reimbursement fees and what they believed the reimbursement fee should be. RESULTS: Eighty-four patients completed the survey. Patients estimated physician's reimbursements at 472% to 1061% more for breast reduction, 347% to 770% for abdominal hernia reconstruction, 372% to 787% for panniculectomy, and 290% to 628% for mandibular fracture repair. Despite these perceived higher-than-actual-fee payments, 87% of patients thought reimbursements should still be higher. CONCLUSIONS: Patients surveyed overestimated plastic surgery procedure fees by 290% to 1061%. Patients should be informed and educated regarding current fee schedules to plastic surgeons to correct current misconceptions.

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.

Open versus endoscopic component separation: a cost comparison.

BACKGROUND: The components separation technique (CST) is performed through an open or endoscopic approach. It is unclear whether the costs associated with the endoscopic instruments outweigh any clinical benefit derived from their use and the avoidance of lipocutaneous flaps. This study aimed to compare the direct costs associated with each approach. METHODS: A retrospective review of patients undergoing open or endoscopic CST between 2005 and 2009 was performed. The review compared patient-related variables, length of hospital stay, wound morbidity, and costs associated with the index operation and encounters within a 6-month period. RESULTS: Of the 54 patients identified, 59% underwent endoscopic repair, and 41% had an open CST repair. The patients were similar in age, American Society of Anesthesiology (ASA) score, gender, body mass index (BMI), number of prior surgeries, active abdominal infection, defect size, operating room time, and length of hospital stay. The overall median direct costs were similar between endoscopic and open CST ($9,942 vs. $17,701; p = 0.09). No difference was detected in median operating room costs, but an approximate $7,000 difference was noted between endoscopic and open CST ($1,871 vs. $8,705; p = 0.96). The median mesh costs differed significantly between endoscopic and open CST ($733 vs. $8,415; p = 0.05) as did stapler use costs ($35 vs. $190; p = 0.002). The median cost of endoscopic instruments was $848. Open CST had a 41% major wound morbidity rate compared with 19% in the endoscopic group (p = 0.07). Most of the encounters in the 6-month follow-up period (85%) were related to wound morbidity. The median cumulative direct costs differed between endoscopic and open CST at 3 and 6 months ($12,528 vs. $20,326; p = 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: In a similarly complex group of patients, the total direct costs associated with endoscopic and open CST were similar. Endoscopic instruments made a marginal contribution to the total overall costs, but significant cost contributors were the use of biologic grafts and wound morbidity.

[Cost-effectiveness of hernia repair : IPOM versus open sublay mesh technique]. / Kosten- und Risikoanalyse der Hernienreparation : Laparoskopische IPOM- vs. offene Sublay-Technik.

In comparison to the conventional technique of incisional or umbilical hernia repair with sublay mesh augmentation, incisional hernias in obese patients can be surgically treated with minor surgical trauma by laparoscopic intraperitoneal onlay mesh (IPOM) repair. However, although shortened operation time, hospital stay and faster postoperative reconvalescence might be possible with IPOM repair, the economic calculation including mesh costs is significantly higher. In this study the two operation techniques were compared and the perioperative advantages and disadvantages of both methods were analyzed based on the German diagnosis-related groups (DRG) system.

Open suture versus mesh repair of primary incisional hernias: a cost-utility analysis.

BACKGROUND: Despite 100,000 ventral hernia repairs (VHR) being performed annually, no gold standard for the technique exists. Mesh has been shown to decrease recurrence rates, yet, concerns of increased complications and costs prevent its systematic use. We examined the cost-effectiveness of open suture (OS) versus open mesh (OM) in primary VHR. METHODS: A decision analysis model from the payer's perspective comparing OS to OM was constructed for calculating the total costs and cost-effectiveness. Probabilities for complications and outcomes were derived from the literature. The costs represented institutional fixed costs. The outcome measure of effectiveness was recurrence. One-way sensitivity analysis and a probabilistic analysis using Monte Carlo simulation were performed. RESULTS: OS was associated with a total cost of $16,355 (+/-6,041) per repair, while OM was $16,947 (+/-7,252). At 3-year follow-up, OM was the more effective treatment with 73.8% being recurrence-free, compared with 56.3% in the OS group. The incremental cost to prevent one recurrence by the placement of mesh was $1,878. OM became the less effective treatment strategy when the infection rate exceeded 35%. At a willingness to pay level of $5,500, OM was the more cost-effective treatment strategy. CONCLUSION: In subjects without contraindication to mesh placement, OM repair is the more effective surgical treatment for VHR, with a lower risk of recurrence at a small cost to the payer.

Técnica de Trabucco: primer reporte nacional (septiembre de 2005) / Trabuccos technique: first national report (September 2005)

Se realizó un estudio prospectivo en pacientes operados de hernia inguinal primaria indirecta o reproducida por primera vez, a quienes se aplicó la técnica libre de tensión, de Trabucco. Se creó una base de datos con 335 pacientes, operados entre junio del 2000 y junio del 2004, en los hospitales «Comandante Manuel Fajardo¼ y el Hospital General de Santiago de Cuba. El uso de esta técnica quirúrgica mostró gran efectividad en cuanto al número de recidivas (0,5 por ciento) y de complicaciones (14 por ciento), al confort posoperatorio y la rápida incorporación de los pacientes a sus labores cotidianas y a la vida laboral, lo que presupone un índice coste-beneficio favorable (aspecto que no incluimos entre los objetivos propuestos). Pudimos concluir que la técnica de Trabucco es un método novedoso y muy efectivo nuestro medio, pues muestra ventajas iguales a las de las restantes hernioplastias libres de tensión(AU)

A prospective study was undertaken in patients operated on of primary indirect inguinal hernia, or hernia reproduced for the first time. Trabuccos tension-free technique was applied. A database with 335 patients that underwent surgery from June 2000 to June 2004 at “Comandante Manuel Fajardo” Hospital and the General Hospital of Santiago de Cuba, was created. The use of this surgical technique showed great effectiveness as regards the number of relapses (0.5 per cent) and complications (14 per cent), the postoperative comfort, and the rapid incorporation of the patients to their daily activities and to work., which presupposes a favorable cost-benefit index (an aspect that was not included among the objectives proposed). It was concluded that Trabuccos technique is a novel and very efficient method in our setting, since it has the same advantages of the rest of the tension-free hernioplasties(AU)

[Economical and social effectiveness of one day surgical treatment in patients with hernial defects of anterior abdominal wall - results of 7 year study].

A hernia is a protrusion of a tissue, structure or part of a organ through the muscular tissue or the membrane by which it is normally contained. Most frequently hernial deffect is seen in anterior abdominal wall. Usually contents of hernial sac are abdominal organs or portion of organs. Hernia is classified according to the operating methods combining with type and grading of hernia. Recent surgical treatment of hernia can be divided in to 3 major groups: 1) Hernioplasty with double breasting techniques ( Bassini, McVay, Schouldice, Halsted). 2) Hernioplasty using tension free techniques (Lichtenstein, Gilbert-Rutkow). 3) Laparoscopic hernioplasty. One day surgery is a diagnostic and operative procedure in hospitalized patients in a single day, without night stay in hospital.

Open vs laparoscopic repair of secondary lumbar hernias: a prospective nonrandomized study.

BACKGROUND: Lumbar hernias are uncommon defects of the posterior abdominal wall. Surgical treatment is still controversial in these cases. The aim of this study was to compare outcome and costs of the laparoscopic approach vs the open method. METHODS: We conducted a prospective nonrandomized study of 16 patients who underwent operation for secondary lumbar hernia between January 1997 and January 2003. Nine were treated via the laparoscopic approach and seven with an open technique. The following variables were analyzed: clinical data, hospital data (operating time and length of stay), patient comfort (consumption of analgesics and time to return to normal activities), and recurrences. Hospital costs were also analyzed. RESULTS: There were no differences between the two groups in terms of age and history, although the defects of the patients in the laparoscopic group were smaller. Mean operating time, postoperative morbidity, mean hospital stay, consumption of analgesics, and time to return to normal activities were significantly lower in the laparoscopic group (p < 0. 01). No were there any statistical differences between the two types of surgical procedure in terms of hospital costs. However, the final cost did show differences when expenses for readmissions and recurrences were taken into account (p < 0.01). CONCLUSION: The laparoscopic approach to secondary lumbar hernia repair is more efficient and more profitable than the traditional open technique.