M Gholghesaei1, H R Langeveld, R Veldkamp, H J Bonjer. 1. Department of Surgery, Erasmus University Medical Center Rotterdam, Dr. Molewaterplein 40, 3015 GD, Rotterdam, The Netherlands. mgholghesaei@hotmail.com
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The ongoing debate about the relative merits of endoscopic (EH) vs open mesh herniorrhaphy (OH) prompts the need for comparisons of outcome measures other than recurrence. Therefore, we reviewed data on the costs, time to return to work, quality of life (QoL), and pain associated with EH and OH. METHODS: Studies comparing EH to OH and explicitly involving costs or QoL were identified and reviewed. RESULTS: Eighteen studies were included. Direct in-hospital costs were higher for unilateral EH. Direct out-of-hospital costs were lower after EH in some studies. Indirect costs were lower for EH. Total costs were higher for EH in three studies and lower in one study. With EH, QoL was better, pain was less, operating time was longer, and time return to work and other activities was shorter. CONCLUSION: From a societal perspective, EH entails costs similar to OH but offers extra benefits to the patient in terms of QoL and pain.
BACKGROUND: The ongoing debate about the relative merits of endoscopic (EH) vs open mesh herniorrhaphy (OH) prompts the need for comparisons of outcome measures other than recurrence. Therefore, we reviewed data on the costs, time to return to work, quality of life (QoL), and pain associated with EH and OH. METHODS: Studies comparing EH to OH and explicitly involving costs or QoL were identified and reviewed. RESULTS: Eighteen studies were included. Direct in-hospital costs were higher for unilateral EH. Direct out-of-hospital costs were lower after EH in some studies. Indirect costs were lower for EH. Total costs were higher for EH in three studies and lower in one study. With EH, QoL was better, pain was less, operating time was longer, and time return to work and other activities was shorter. CONCLUSION: From a societal perspective, EH entails costs similar to OH but offers extra benefits to the patient in terms of QoL and pain.
Authors: Leigh Neumayer; Anita Giobbie-Hurder; Olga Jonasson; Robert Fitzgibbons; Dorothy Dunlop; James Gibbs; Domenic Reda; William Henderson Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2004-04-25 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: A M Paganini; E Lezoche; F Carle; F Carlei; F Favretti; F Feliciotti; R Gesuita; M Guerrieri; D Lomanto; M Nardovino; M Panti; P Ribichini; L Sarli; M Sottili; A Tamburini; A Taschieri Journal: Surg Endosc Date: 1998-07 Impact factor: 4.584
Authors: M M Poelman; B van den Heuvel; J D Deelder; G S A Abis; N Beudeker; R R Bittner; G Campanelli; D van Dam; B J Dwars; H H Eker; A Fingerhut; I Khatkov; F Koeckerling; J F Kukleta; M Miserez; A Montgomery; R M Munoz Brands; S Morales Conde; F E Muysoms; M Soltes; W Tromp; Y Yavuz; H J Bonjer Journal: Surg Endosc Date: 2013-05-25 Impact factor: 4.584
Authors: Gerwin A Bernhardt; Gerald Gruber; Benjamin S Molderings; Herwig Cerwenka; Mathias Glehr; Christian Giessauf; Peter Kornprat; Andreas Leithner; Hans-Jörg Mischinger Journal: Surg Endosc Date: 2013-09-06 Impact factor: 4.584
Authors: Juliane Bingener; Jeff A Sloan; Drew K Seisler; Andrea L McConico; Pamela E Skaran; David R Farley; Mark J Truty Journal: J Gastrointest Surg Date: 2015-03-18 Impact factor: 3.452
Authors: M P Simons; T Aufenacker; M Bay-Nielsen; J L Bouillot; G Campanelli; J Conze; D de Lange; R Fortelny; T Heikkinen; A Kingsnorth; J Kukleta; S Morales-Conde; P Nordin; V Schumpelick; S Smedberg; M Smietanski; G Weber; M Miserez Journal: Hernia Date: 2009-07-28 Impact factor: 4.739