Ultrasound-Guided Pudendal Nerve Block in Patients Undergoing Open Hemorrhoidectomy: A Post-Hoc Cost-Effectiveness Analysis from a Double-Blind Randomized Controlled Trial.

BACKGROUND: Pudendal nerve block (PNB) has been demonstrated to reduce postoperative pain and re-admission rates after open hemorrhoidectomy and may reduce costs but, to date, no study has reported data on this aspect. The aim of our study was to perform a cost analysis on PNB use in in- and outpatients undergoing open hemorrhoidectomy. METHODS: From January 2018 to December 2019, patients undergoing open hemorrhoidectomy were included and randomized to undergo spinal anesthesia either with or without the PNB. Clinical data, direct and indirect costs for in- and outpatients, operating time and operating theatre occupancy were recorded. A cost-effectiveness analysis based on the diagnosis-related groups (DRG) and TARMED reimbursement systems was performed. RESULTS: Patients who underwent PNB in addition to spinal anesthesia had significantly less pain and a shorter length of hospital stay after open hemorrhoidectomy. The cost analysis included all 49 patients, 23 of whom, in addition to spinal anesthesia, received a PNB. There were no significant differences in operating theatre occupancy (p=0.662), mean operative time (p=0.610) or time required for anesthesia (p=0.124). Direct costs were comparable (482±386 vs 613±543 EUR, p=0.108), while indirect costs were significantly lower in the PNB group (2606±816 vs 2769±1506 EUR, p=0.005). We estimated an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of -243 ± 881 EUR/pain unit on the VAS. CONCLUSION: Despite limitations, the ultrasound-guided PNB seems to reduce costs in patient undergoing open hemorrhoidectomy under spinal anesthesia. It was shown to be clinically beneficial and cost-effective, and therefore recommendable in patients undergoing open hemorrhoidectomy.

Open and Laparoscopic Inguinal Hernia Surgery: A Cost Analysis.

Background: In the treatment of inguinal hernias, there is little hard evidence concerning the economic reimbursement in the diagnosis-related group (DRG) era. Factors that affect whether a hospital may earn or lose financially depending on open or laparoscopic approach is still underexplored. The aim of this study was to provide a reliable analysis of in-hospital costs and reimbursements in inguinal hernia surgery. Methods: This retrospective study analyzed the 1-year experience in inguinal hernia repair in patients undergoing open Lichtenstein (OL), laparoscopic totally extraperitoneal unilateral (UTEP), or bilateral (BTEP) hernia repair. Demographics, results, costs, and DRG-based reimbursements were recorded and analyzed. Results: During the study period, 39 patients underwent OL, 82 patients UTEP, and 16 patients BTEP. The average total cost amounted to 4126 EUR in OL, 5134 EUR in UTEP, and 7082 EUR in BTEP groups (P < .001). The hospital reimbursement amounted to 5486 EUR, 5252 EUR, and 6555 EUR in the OL, UTEP, and BTEP groups, respectively (P < .001). Finally, the mean hospital earnings were 1360 EUR, 118 EUR, and -527 EUR for each patient in OL, UTEP, and BTEP, respectively (P < .001). Conclusions: In-hospital costs were higher in UTEP and BTEP as compared with OL. The DRG-based reimbursement provided adequate compensation for patients with unilateral inguinal hernia, whereas hospital earnings were profitable in OL group only, and led an overall financial loss in the BTEP group. Surgeons should be conscious that clinical advantages of the laparoscopic approach are not adequately compensated for, from an economic point of view.

Financial Impact of Anastomotic Leakage in Colorectal Surgery.

BACKGROUND: Anastomotic leakage after colorectal surgery is a complication that requires additional treatments strongly affecting the economic outcomes. We evaluated the use of resources and the economic burden associated with anastomotic leaks following colorectal surgery. METHODS: Between January 2015 and December 2016, we retrospectively evaluated patients who underwent colorectal surgery with primary anastomosis. We compared the medical resource utilization and the DRG-based reimbursement of cases with uncomplicated surgery and cases complicated by anastomotic leakage. RESULTS: Of the 95 patients included in the study, 87 (92%) presented an uneventful postoperative course and 8 patients (8%) developed an anastomotic leakage requiring surgery. The statistical analysis showed no significant differences in terms of demographics, risks factor, and operative results, except the length of hospital stay (9.7 vs. 29.1 days, p < 0.01). The cost for 87 uncomplicated cases was 1,535,297 EUR (average cost of 17,647 EUR), whereas the cost of the 8 patients with anastomotic leakage was 575,822 EUR (average cost of 71,978 EUR) (p < 0.01). For each patient, the hospital had 542 EUR profit in the uncomplicated group and a 12,181 EUR loss in the anastomotic leakage group (p < 0.01). The multiple R-squared line regression analysis showed that factors independently related to costs were age (p = 0.05) and length of hospital stay (p = 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: In terms of economic impact, the occurrence of an anastomotic leakage has a large negative influence on medical resource utilization, so that, despite the complication-related increase of DRG-reimbursement, every complicated case represents a financial burden for the hospital.