Literature DB >> 14662534

Cost-effectiveness of defunctioning stomas in low anterior resections for rectal cancer: a call for benchmarking.

Thomas Koperna1.   

Abstract

HYPOTHESIS: Anastomotic leakage is the most important cost driver in patients who undergo low anterior resection (LAR) for rectal cancer. Creating defunctioning stomas to protect colorectal anastomoses may also have a major effect on the overall costs. Unselected creation of defunctioning stomas in most of these patients may be associated with higher overall costs compared with a program that has a low rate of defunctioning stomas and an acceptable anastomotic leakage rate.
DESIGN: Cost-effectiveness analysis.
SETTING: Secondary referral center. PATIENTS: Performing a cost analysis from the viewpoint of a hospital provider, we reviewed data of 70 consecutive patients who underwent LARs with (n = 19) or without (n = 51) a defunctioning colostomy. A scenario analysis was performed using data derived from the medical literature to assess a plausible range of leakage and stoma rates. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Costs per treatment option and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio according to various treatment scenarios.
RESULTS: Performing an LAR without a stoma and no anastomotic leakage is associated with significantly lowest costs (8.400 euro; P<.001) compared with patients with a stoma (13.985 euro) and patients with anastomotic leakage (42.250 euro). The most important cost drivers were anastomotic leakages and defunctioning stomas. A leakage rate of 16.5% in patients without a stoma would be necessary to balance the overall costs of patients with stomas. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio would be 158.705 euro and 60.915 euro per leak, respectively, avoided in patients with defunctioning stomas assuming a leakage rate lower than 3% and 6%, respectively, in patients who did not undergo a colostomy. A 1-way sensitivity analysis revealed that duration and costs of intensive care unit care were the only factors that may considerably alter our results.
CONCLUSIONS: A suggested benchmark for an LAR should be a rate of 10% or less for defunctioning stomas and anastomatic leaks; that would limit the overall costs to 12,000 euro per patient treated. Against the background of a lack of universally valid criteria for the creation of defunctioning stomas, our aim should be to reduce the rate of defunctioning stomas because of their major effect on the overall costs especially in programs with a lower leakage rate. Higher leakage rates despite higher stoma rates depend more on the skill of the surgeon than on the characteristics of the patient and higher leakage should lead to a change in surgical technique strategy.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2003        PMID: 14662534     DOI: 10.1001/archsurg.138.12.1334

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Arch Surg        ISSN: 0004-0010


  25 in total

1.  Complications of loop ileostomy closure in patients with rectal tumor.

Authors:  Takashi Akiyoshi; Yoshiya Fujimoto; Tsuyoshi Konishi; Hiroya Kuroyanagi; Masashi Ueno; Masatoshi Oya; Toshiharu Yamaguchi
Journal:  World J Surg       Date:  2010-08       Impact factor: 3.352

2.  Retreatment of a patient who presented with synchronous multiple primary colorectal carcinoma: report of a case.

Authors:  Zheng Jiang; Shan Muhammad; Xishan Wang
Journal:  Chin J Cancer Res       Date:  2013-08       Impact factor: 5.087

3.  Risk factors and outcomes for anastomotic leakage in colorectal surgery: a single-institution analysis of 1576 patients.

Authors:  Mark A Boccola; Petra G Buettner; Warren M Rozen; Simon K Siu; Andrew R L Stevenson; Russell Stitz; Yik-Hong Ho
Journal:  World J Surg       Date:  2011-01       Impact factor: 3.352

Review 4.  Risk factors and predictive factors for anastomotic leakage after resection for colorectal cancer: reappraisal of the literature.

Authors:  Fumihiko Fujita; Yasuhiro Torashima; Tamotsu Kuroki; Susumu Eguchi
Journal:  Surg Today       Date:  2013-09-05       Impact factor: 2.549

5.  Total mesorectal excision: what are we doing?

Authors:  David B Stewart; David W Dietz
Journal:  Clin Colon Rectal Surg       Date:  2007-08

6.  Little consensus in either definition or diagnosis of a lower gastro-intestinal anastomotic leak amongst colorectal surgeons.

Authors:  K Adams; S Papagrigoriadis
Journal:  Int J Colorectal Dis       Date:  2013-02-05       Impact factor: 2.571

7.  Reconstruction techniques after proctectomy: what's the best?

Authors:  Sebastian G de la Fuente; Christopher R Mantyh
Journal:  Clin Colon Rectal Surg       Date:  2007-08

8.  Risk factors for anastomotic leakage after laparoscopic rectal resection.

Authors:  Dong Hyun Choi; Jae Kwan Hwang; Yong Tak Ko; Han Jeong Jang; Hyeon Keun Shin; Young Chan Lee; Cheong Ho Lim; Seung Kyu Jeong; Hyung Kyu Yang
Journal:  J Korean Soc Coloproctol       Date:  2010-08-31

9.  Costs of relaparotomy on-demand versus planned relaparotomy in patients with severe peritonitis: an economic evaluation within a randomized controlled trial.

Authors:  Brent C Opmeer; Kimberly R Boer; Oddeke van Ruler; Johannes B Reitsma; Hein G Gooszen; Peter W de Graaf; Bas Lamme; Michael F Gerhards; E Philip Steller; Cecilia M Mahler; Huug Obertop; Dirk J Gouma; Patrick Mm Bossuyt; Corianne Ajm de Borgie; Marja A Boermeester
Journal:  Crit Care       Date:  2010-05-27       Impact factor: 9.097

10.  Early predictors of anastomotic leaks after colectomy.

Authors:  C F Bellows; L S Webber; D Albo; S Awad; D H Berger
Journal:  Tech Coloproctol       Date:  2009-03-14       Impact factor: 3.781

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.