Long-term cost-effectiveness analysis of sacral neuromodulation in the treatment of severe faecal incontinence.

AIM: The aim of this study was to evaluate the long-term cost-effectiveness of sacral neuromodulation in the treatment of severe faecal incontinence as compared with symptomatic management. METHODS: In the public health field, a micro-costing evaluation method was conducted from the perspectives of the health system and the society. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was used as a decision index, and we considered various scenarios to evaluate the impact of the cost of symptomatic management and percutaneous nerve evaluation success rate in its calculation. Clinical data were retrieved from a consecutive cohort of 93 patients with severe faecal incontinence undergoing sacral neuromodulation after a failure of conservative (pharmacological and biofeedback) and/or surgical (sphincteroplasty) first-line treatments were considered. RESULTS: The long-term incremental cost-effectiveness ratio comparing sacral neuromodulation versus symptomatic management was 14347€/QALY and 28523€/QALY from the societal and health service provider's perspectives, respectively. If the definitive pulse generator implant success rate was 100%, incremental cost-effectiveness would correspond to 6831€/QALY and 16761€/QALY, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Sacral neuromodulation may be considered a cost-effective technique in the long-term treatment of severe faecal incontinence from the societal and health care sector perspectives. Improving patient selection and determining the predictive outcome factors for successful sacral neuromodulation in the treatment of faecal incontinence would improve cost-effectiveness.

Resultados oncológicos según el tipo de resección en el tratamiento del cáncer de recto / Oncological results according to type of resection for rectal cancer

INTRODUCCIÓN: El objetivo de este trabajo observacional multicéntrico ha sido comparar los resultados de la resección anterior (RA) y la amputación abdominoperineal (AAP) en el tratamiento del cáncer de recto. MÉTODO: Entre marzo de 2006 y marzo de 2009, 1.598 pacientes diagnosticados de un tumor del tercio medio o inferior de recto fueron operados en los primeros 38 hospitales incluidos en el Proyecto del Cáncer de Recto de la Asociación Española de Cirujanos. La cirugía se consideró curativa en 1.343 pacientes. Los resultados clínicos y oncológicos se analizaron con relación al tipo de resección. Todos los pacientes fueron incluidos en el análisis de los resultados clínicos; para el análisis de los resultados oncológicos solo se consideraron los pacientes con operaciones curativas. RESULTADOS: En 1.139 (71,3%) de los 1.598 pacientes se practicó una RA y en 459 (28,7%) una AAP. De los 1.343 pacientes operados con intención curativa, en 973 (72,4%) se practicó una RA y en 370 (27,6%) una AAP. No hubo diferencias entre RA y AAP en la mortalidad operatoria (29 vs. 18 pacientes; p = 0,141). Con un seguimiento de 60,0 (49,0-60,0) meses no se encontraron diferencias entre ambas operaciones en la recidiva local (HR 1,68 [0,87-3,23]; p = 0,12) ni en las metástasis (HR 1,31 [0,98-1,76]; p = 0,064). Sin embargo, la supervivencia global fue menor con la AAP (HR 1,37 [1,00-1,86]; p = 0,048). CONCLUSIÓN: Este estudio no ha identificado la AAP como factor determinante de recidiva local ni de metástasis, pero sí de la disminución de la supervivencia global

OBJECTIVE: This multicentre observational study aimed to compare outcomes of anterior resection (AR) and abdominal perineal resection (APR) in patients treated for rectal cancer. Methods Between March 2006 and March 2009 a cohort of 1,598 patients diagnosed with low and mid rectal cancer were operated on in the first 38 hospitals included in the Spanish Rectal Cancer Project. In 1,343 patients the procedure was considered curative. Clinical and outcome results were analysed in relation to the type of surgery performed. All patients were included in the analysis of clinical results. The analysis of outcomes was performed only on patients treated by a curative procedure. RESULTS: Of the 1,598 patients, 1,139 (71.3%) underwent an AR and 459 (28.7%) an APR. In 1,343 patients the procedure was performed with curative intent; from these 973 (72.4%) had an AR and 370 (27.6%) an APR. There were no differences between AR and APR in mortality (29 vs. 18 patients; P = .141). After a median follow up of 60.0 [49.0-60.0] months there were no differences in local recurrence (HR 1.68 [0.87-3.23]; P = .12), metastases (HR 1.31 [0.98-1.76]; P = .064). However, overall survival was worse after APR (HR 1.37 [1.00-1.86]; P = .048). CONCLUSION: This study did not identify abdominoperineal excision as a determinant of local recurrence or metastases. However, patients treated by this operation have a decreased overall survival

Oncological results according to type of resection for rectal cancer.

OBJECTIVE: This multicentre observational study aimed to compare outcomes of anterior resection (AR) and abdominal perineal resection (APR) in patients treated for rectal cancer. METHODS: Between March 2006 and March 2009 a cohort of 1,598 patients diagnosed with low and mid rectal cancer were operated on in the first 38 hospitals included in the Spanish Rectal Cancer Project. In 1,343 patients the procedure was considered curative. Clinical and outcome results were analysed in relation to the type of surgery performed. All patients were included in the analysis of clinical results. The analysis of outcomes was performed only on patients treated by a curative procedure. RESULTS: Of the 1,598 patients, 1,139 (71.3%) underwent an AR and 459 (28.7%) an APR. In 1,343 patients the procedure was performed with curative intent; from these 973 (72.4%) had an AR and 370 (27.6%) an APR. There were no differences between AR and APR in mortality (29 vs. 18 patients; P=.141). After a median follow up of 60.0 [49.0-60.0] months there were no differences in local recurrence (HR 1.68 [0.87-3.23]; P=.12), metastases (HR 1.31 [0.98-1.76]; P=.064). However, overall survival was worse after APR (HR 1.37 [1.00-1.86]; P=.048). CONCLUSION: This study did not identify abdominoperineal excision as a determinant of local recurrence or metastases. However, patients treated by this operation have a decreased overall survival.

Análisis de la calidad asistencial del tratamiento quirúrgico del cáncer colorrectal en 2008. Estudio de ámbito nacional / Analysis of the quality of surgical treatment of colorectal cancer, in 2008. A national study

Objectivos: Estudio de ámbito nacional realizado por la Asociación Española de Cirujanos con el objetivo de analizar el tratamiento quirúrgico del cáncer colorrectal (CCR) en España y compararlo con la bibliografía. Material y métodos: Estudio multicéntrico descriptivo, prospectivo y longitudinal de pacientes intervenidos quirúrgicamente de forma programada por CCR. Han participado 50 hospitales de 15 comunidades autónomas aportando 496 casos intervenidos en 2008. Se han recogido 88 variables. Resultados: Mediana de edad 72 años, aumento de pacientes ASA III, preoperatorio correcto, en el recto un 4% sin estatificar. Tendencia a no realizar preparación del colon o a hacerlo únicamente un día. Los porcentajes de complicaciones están en rangos de la bibliografía excepto infección de herida quirúrgica (19%). Media de ganglios resecados: 13,2; 4,3% no resección mesorrectal. Anastomosis mecánicas: 80,8%, 65,9% de las intervenciones realizadas por cirujano colorrectal, Radioterapia preoperatoria en cáncer de recto 43,5%. Quimioterapia 32,9%. Laparoscopia: 35,1% de los casos, índice de conversión 13,8%. Uso de antibióticos: 37,1%, transfusión sanguínea: 20,6% y nutrición parenteral: 26,5%. Conclusiones: El tratamiento quirúrgico del CCR en España tiene un nivel de calidad y unos resultados perioperatorios similares al resto de Europa. Respecto a estudios previos, se observan avances en la preparación del paciente, estudio preoperatorio, técnicas de imagen y mejoras en técnica quirúrgica con adopción de escisión del mesorrecto, linfadenectomías adecuadas y preservación de esfínteres. Existen áreas de mejora como disminución de la infección de la herida quirúrgica, mayor uso de estomas de protección, uso adecuado de antibióticos, nutrición parenteral o neoadyuvancia y colonoscopias completas (AU)

Objective: A national study conducted for the Spanish Association of Surgeons with the aim of analysing the surgical treatment of colorectal cancer (CRC) in Spain and to compare it with scientific literature. Material and methods: A multicentre, descriptive, prospective and longitudinal study of patients with CRC who were treated by elective surgery. A total of 50 hospitals in 15 Autonomous Regions took part, with 496 treated cases in 2008. A total of 88 variables were collected. Results: The median age was 72 years, increase in ASA III patients; correct preoperative studies, 4% with no staging in the rectum. There was a tendency not to use the colon cleansing or to do it only one day. The percentage of complications is within the ranges in the literature, with the exception of surgical wound infections (19%). Mean of resected lymph nodes: 13.2; 4.3% no mesorectal resection. Mechanical anastomosis: 80.8%, 65.9% of the operations performed by a colorectal surgeon. Preoperative radiotherapy in 43.5% of rectal cancers. Chemotherapy: 32.9%. Laparoscopy: 35.1% of cases, conversion rate 13.8%. Use of antibiotics: 37.1%, blood transfusion: 20.6% and parenteral nutrition: 26.5%. Conclusions: Surgical treatment of CRC in Spain has a level of quality and peri-operative results similar to the rest of Europe. Compared to previous studies, it was observed that there were advances in preparation of the patient, preoperative studies, imaging techniques, and improvements in surgical techniques with adoption of mesorectal excision, appropriate lymphadenectomies and preservation of sphincters There are areas for improvement, such as a reduction in surgical wound infections, increase use of protective stoma, appropriate use of antibiotics, parenteral nutrition or neoadjuvants and complete colonoscopies (AU)

[Analysis of the quality of surgical treatment of colorectal cancer, in 2008. A national study]. / Análisis de la calidad asistencial del tratamiento quirúrgico del cáncer colorrectal en 2008. Estudio de ámbito nacional.

OBJECTIVE: A national study conducted for the Spanish Association of Surgeons with the aim of analysing the surgical treatment of colorectal cancer (CRC) in Spain and to compare it with scientific literature. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A multicentre, descriptive, prospective and longitudinal study of patients with CRC who were treated by elective surgery. A total of 50 hospitals in 15 Autonomous Regions took part, with 496 treated cases in 2008. A total of 88 variables were collected. RESULTS: The median age was 72 years, increase in ASA III patients; correct preoperative studies, 4% with no staging in the rectum. There was a tendency not to use the colon cleansing or to do it only one day. The percentage of complications is within the ranges in the literature, with the exception of surgical wound infections (19%). Mean of resected lymph nodes: 13.2; 4.3% no mesorectal resection. Mechanical anastomosis: 80.8%, 65.9% of the operations performed by a colorectal surgeon. Preoperative radiotherapy in 43.5% of rectal cancers. Chemotherapy: 32.9%. Laparoscopy: 35.1% of cases, conversion rate 13.8%. Use of antibiotics: 37.1%, blood transfusion: 20.6% and parenteral nutrition: 26.5%. CONCLUSIONS: Surgical treatment of CRC in Spain has a level of quality and peri-operative results similar to the rest of Europe. Compared to previous studies, it was observed that there were advances in preparation of the patient, preoperative studies, imaging techniques, and improvements in surgical techniques with adoption of mesorectal excision, appropriate lymphadenectomies and preservation of sphincters. There are areas for improvement, such as a reduction in surgical wound infections, increase use of protective stoma, appropriate use of antibiotics, parenteral nutrition or neoadjuvants and complete colonoscopies.

[Comparison of colostomies and ileostomies as diverting stomas after low anterior resection]. / Comparación de colostomías e ileostomías como estomas derivativos tras resección anterior baja.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of the present study was to evaluate two procedures (transverse colostomy and ileostomy) as diverting stomas after low anterior resection to determine whether one is superior to the other. MATERIAL AND METHOD: A literature review was performed to compare both stomas from construction to closure. RESULTS: Distinguishing between the complications specific to stoma construction from those caused by anterior resection is difficult. While the stoma is in place, transverse colostomy seems to be better tolerated. Colostomy closure seems to have more septic complications, although the real frequency of bowel obstruction after ileostomy closure remains to be determined. CONCLUSIONS: Given the characteristics of previous studies, the superiority of one diverting stoma over the other cannot be established. Ileostomy seems better tolerated by patients and is associated with a lower complication rate after closure (bowel obstruction remains to be evaluated). Randomized prospective studies with a larger number of patients are required to determine which of these procedures is superior.

Comparación de colostomías e ileostomías como estomas derivativos tras resección anterior baja / Comparison of colostomies and ileostomies as diverting stomas after low anterior resection

Objetivo. Valorar si es mejor la colostomía transversa o la ileostomía como estomas derivativos tras resección anterior baja. Material y método. Se ha llevado a cabo una revisión bibliográfica para intentar comparar ambos estomas desde la construcción hasta su cierre. Resultados. En el momento de la construcción no es fácil sacar conclusiones, ya que es difícil distinguir las complicaciones específicas secundarias a la construcción del estoma de las ocasionadas por la resección anterior. Durante el tiempo en que el paciente es portador del estoma, la colostomía transversa parece tolerarse peor. El cierre de la colostomía parece tener más complicaciones sépticas, aunque está por aclarar la frecuencia real de obstrucción intestinal tras el cierre de ileostomía. Conclusiones. Dadas las características de los estudios previos, no es posible establecer en términos generales qué estoma derivativo es mejor. La ileostomía parece mejor tolerada por el paciente y se asocia a una menor tasa de complicaciones tras el cierre (quedando pendiente de evaluar la obstrucción intestinal). Son necesarios estudios prospectivos aleatorizados con un mayor número de pacientes para poder responder a la pregunta planteada (AU)

Objective. The aim of the present study was to evaluate two procedures (transverse colostomy and ileostomy) as diverting stomas after low anterior resection to determine whether one is superior to the other. Material and method. A literature review was performed to compare both stomas from construction to closure. Results. Distinguishing between the complications specific to stoma construction from those caused by anterior resection is difficult. While the stoma is in place, transverse colostomy seems to be better tolerated. Colostomy closure seems to have more septic complications, although the real frequency of bowel obstruction after ileostomy closure remains to be determined. Conclusions. Given the characteristics of previous studies, the superiority of one diverting stoma over the other cannot be established. Ileostomy seems better tolerated by patients and is associated with a lower complication rate after closure (bowel obstruction remains to be evaluated). Randomized prospective studies with a larger number of patients are required to determine which of these procedures is superior (AU)