Association of socioeconomic vulnerability with clinical and financial outcomes following emergent hernia repair.

BACKGROUND: While race and insurance have been linked with greater likelihood of hernia incarceration and emergent presentation, the association of broader social determinants of health (SDOH) with outcomes following urgent repair remains to be elucidated. STUDY DESIGN: All adult hospitalizations entailing emergent repair for strangulated inguinal, femoral, and ventral hernias were identified in the 2016-2020 Nationwide Readmissions Database. Socioeconomic vulnerability was ascertained using relevant diagnosis codes. Multivariable models were developed to consider the independent associations between socioeconomic vulnerability and study outcomes. RESULTS: Of ∼236,215 patients, 20,306 (8.6 â€‹%) were Vulnerable. Following risk-adjustment, socioeconomic vulnerability remained associated with greater odds of in-hospital mortality, any perioperative complication, increased hospitalization expenditures and higher risk of non-elective readmission. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients undergoing emergent hernia repair, socioeconomic vulnerability was linked with greater morbidity, expenditures, and readmission. As part of patient-centered care, novel screening, postoperative management, and SDOH-informed discharge planning programs are needed to mitigate disparities in outcomes.

Hospital costs of robotic-assisted and open treatment of large ventral hernias.

Robotic-assisted treatment of ventral hernia offers many advantages, however, studies reported higher costs for robotic surgery compared to other surgical techniques. We aimed at comparing hospital costs in patients undergoing large ventral hernia repair with either robotic or open surgery. We searched from a prospectively maintained database patients who underwent robotic or open surgery for the treatment of the large ventral hernias from January 2016 to December 2022. The primary endpoint was to assess costs in both groups. For eligible patients, data was extracted and analyzed using a propensity score-matching. Sixty-seven patients were retrieved from our database. Thirty-four underwent robotic-assisted surgery and 33 open surgery. Mean age was 66.4 ± 4.1 years, 50% of patients were male. After a propensity score-matching, a similar total cost of EUR 18,297 ± 8,435 vs. 18,024 ± 7514 (p = 0.913) in robotic-assisted and open surgery groups was noted. Direct and indirect costs were similar in both groups. Robotic surgery showed higher operatory theatre-related costs (EUR 7532 ± 2,091 vs. 3351 ± 1872, p < 0.001), which were compensated by shorter hospital stay-related costs (EUR 4265 ± 4366 vs. 7373 ± 4698, p = 0.032). In the treatment of large ventral hernia, robotic surgery had higher operatory theatre-related costs, however, they were fully compensated by shorter hospital stays and resulting in similar total costs.

Is implementation of robotic-assisted procedures in acute care general surgery cost-effective?

Over the past 2 decades, the use and importance of robotic surgery in minimally invasive surgery has increased. Across various surgical specialties, robotic technology has gained popularity through its use of 3D visualization, optimal ergonomic positioning, and precise instrument manipulation. This growing interest has also been seen in acute care surgery, where laparoscopic procedures are used more frequently. Despite the growing popularity of robotic surgery in the acute care surgical realm, there is very little research on the utility of robotics regarding its effects on health outcomes and cost-effectiveness. The current literature indicates some value in utilizing robotic technology in specific urgent procedures, such as cholecystectomies and incarcerated hernia repairs; however, the high cost of robotic surgery was found to be a potential barrier to its widespread use in acute care surgery. This narrative literature review aims to determine the cost-effectiveness of robotic-assisted surgery (RAS) in surgical procedures that are often done in urgent settings: cholecystectomies, inguinal hernia repair, ventral hernia repair, and appendectomies.

Determining the value of the abdominal core health quality collaborative to support regulatory decisions.

PURPOSE: The study objective is to document value created by real-world evidence from the Abdominal Core Health Quality Collaborative (ACHQC) for regulatory decisions. The ACHQC is a national effort that generates data on hernia repair techniques and devices. METHODS: Two retrospective cohort evaluations compared cost and time of ACHQC analyses to traditional postmarket studies. The first analysis was based on 25 reports submitted to the European Medicines Agency of 20 mesh products for post-market surveillance. A second analysis supported label expansion submitted to the Food and Drug Administration, Center for Devices and Radiological Health for a robotic-assisted surgery device to include ventral hernia repair. Estimated costs of counterfactual studies, defined as studies that might have been done if the registry had not been available, were derived from a model described in the literature. Return on investment, percentage of cost savings, and time savings were calculated. RESULTS: 45,010 patients contributed to the two analyses. The cost and time differences between individual 25 ACHQC analyses (41,112 patients) and traditional studies ranged from $1.3 to $2.2 million and from 3 to 4.8 years, both favoring use of the ACHQC. In the second label expansion analysis (3,898 patients), the estimated return on investment ranged from 11 to 461% with time savings of 5.1 years favoring use of the ACHQC. CONCLUSIONS: Compared to traditional postmarket studies, use of ACHQC data can result in cost and time savings when used for appropriate regulatory decisions in light of key assumptions.

A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Wittmann Patch-Assisted Abdominal Closure Compared to Planned Ventral Hernia in Management of the Open Abdomen.

BACKGROUND: Inability to achieve primary fascial closure after damage control laparotomy is a frequently encountered problem by acute care and trauma surgeons. This study aims to compare the cost-effectiveness of Wittmann patch-assisted closure to the planned ventral hernia closure. METHODS: A literature review was performed to determine the probabilities and outcomes for Wittmann patch-assisted primary closure and planned ventral hernia closure techniques. Average utility scores were obtained by a patient-administered survey for the following: rate of successful surgeries (uncomplicated abdominal wall closure), surgical site infection, wound dehiscence, abdominal hernia and enterocutaneous fistula. A visual analogue scale (VAS) was utilized to assess the survey responses and then converted to quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). Total cost for each strategy was calculated using Medicare billing codes. A decision tree was generated with rollback and incremental cost-utility ratio (ICUR) analyses. Sensitivity analyses were performed to account for uncertainty. RESULTS: Wittmann patch-assisted closure was associated with higher clinical effectiveness of 19.43 QALYs compared to planned ventral hernia repair (19.38), with a relative cost reduction of US$7777. Rollback analysis supported Wittmann patch-assisted closure as the more cost-effective strategy. The resulting negative ICUR of -156,679.77 favored Wittmann patch-assisted closure. Monte Carlo analysis demonstrated a confidence of 96.8% that Wittmann patch-assisted closure was cost-effective. CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrates using the Wittmann patch-assisted closure strategy as a more cost-efficient management of the open abdomen compared to the planned ventral hernia approach.

Aclaraciones a las dudas sobre un artículo de coste-beneficio en eventraciones / Clarifications to questions on an incisional hernia cost-benefit study

No disponible

Costo-efectividad en la atención hospitalaria de algunas patológías / Cost-effectiveness in hospital care of some pathologies

Se presentan los resultados del estudio de costo-efectividad realizado en enfermos internados en hospitales públicos del sector norte de Santiago. Corresponden a 181 pacientes con colelitiasis, apendicitis aguda, hernias abdominales, úlceras duodenales, adenoma prostático, embarazo ectópico, IRA e ictericias del recién nacido. Para estimar el costo de la atención médica se emplearon los valores FONASA de Pago Asociado a Diagnóstico (PAD) para estas patologías. La efectividad fue medida por el porcentaje de recuperación completa observada en el seguimiento domiciliario realizado 30 días y 6 meses después del alta. En conjunto, los pacientes tuvieron un 70,2 por ciento de recuperación a 30 días y 84 por ciento a 6 meses plazo. Como el costo promedio de hospitalización alcanzó a $ 414.000, la relación costo-efectividad a 30 días fue de $ 5.900 y a 6 meses de $ 4.960, montos que indican el gasto necesario para mejorar en un punto poncentual el porcentaje de recuperación completa de los pacientes. El costo-efectividad resultó más alto para patologías de manejo quirúrgico, para el género femenino, para adultos de edad media y para beneficiarios de FONASA. Mientras en la atención primaria una buena ecuación de costo-efectividad depende más de la proporción de recuperación de los pacientes que de bajos costos de atención médica, en el caso de la atención hospitalaria el costo-efectividad está fundamentalmente ligado a los costos de operación