Literature DB >> 23271350

TIPP and Lichtenstein modalities for inguinal hernia repair: a cost minimisation analysis alongside a randomised trial.

G G Koning1, E M M Adang, P F M Stalmeier, F Keus, P W H E Vriens, C J H M van Laarhoven.   

Abstract

The transinguinal preperitoneal (TIPP) technique using a soft mesh with a memory ring was developed recently for inguinal hernia repair. To compare TIPP with the Lichtenstein method, a randomised trial was conducted (ISRCTN93798494). The aim of this study was to perform an economic evaluation of the TIPP modality compared to the Lichtenstein modality from both a hospital and societal perspective alongside the clinical trial. The TULIP study was a double-blind randomised clinical trial comparing two techniques for inguinal hernia repair (TIPP and Lichtenstein). Correct generation of the allocation sequence, allocation concealment, blinding, and follow-up were used/applied according to the recommendations of the Cochrane Handbook. Next to the cost drivers, the short-form-36 health survey (SF-36) data from the TULIP trial was used to determine utility. The SF-36 data from the TULIP trial were revised using the SF-6D algorithm according to Brazier. Two scenarios-a hospital and a societal perspective-were presented. If the analyses showed no difference in effects (on the SF-6D) the cost effectiveness decision rule to cost minimisation was altered. No significant difference in SF-6D utility between both modalities was found (mean difference: 0.888, 95% CI -1.02 to 1.23); consequently, the economic decision rule became cost minimisation. For the hospital perspective no significant differences in costs were found (mean difference: euro -13, 95% CI euro -130 to euro 104). However, when including productivity gains in the analysis, significant differences (P = 0.037) in costs favouring the TIPP modality (mean saving: euro 1,472, 95% CI euro 463- euro 2,714) were found. The results show that TIPP is a cost-saving inguinal hernia repair technique compared to the Lichtenstein modality against equal effectiveness expressed as quality adjusted life week at 1 year given a societal perspective. In the trial, TIPP patients showed on average a quicker recovery of 6.5 days compared to Lichtenstein patients.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2012        PMID: 23271350     DOI: 10.1007/s10198-012-0453-0

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Eur J Health Econ        ISSN: 1618-7598


  22 in total

Review 1.  A review of the use of health status measures in economic evaluation.

Authors:  J Brazier; M Deverill; C Green; R Harper; A Booth
Journal:  Health Technol Assess       Date:  1999       Impact factor: 4.014

2.  The estimation of a preference-based measure of health from the SF-36.

Authors:  John Brazier; Jennifer Roberts; Mark Deverill
Journal:  J Health Econ       Date:  2002-03       Impact factor: 3.883

Review 3.  Guidelines for pharmacoeconomic studies. Recommendations from the panel on cost effectiveness in health and medicine. Panel on cost Effectiveness in Health and Medicine.

Authors:  J E Siegel; G W Torrance; L B Russell; B R Luce; M C Weinstein; M R Gold
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  1997-02       Impact factor: 4.981

4.  Transinguinal preperitoneal memory ring patch versus Lichtenstein repair for unilateral inguinal hernias.

Authors:  Frederik Berrevoet; Leander Maes; Koen Reyntjens; Xavier Rogiers; Roberto Troisi; Bernard de Hemptinne
Journal:  Langenbecks Arch Surg       Date:  2009-07-31       Impact factor: 3.445

5.  Health status one year after TransInguinal PrePeritoneal inguinal hernia repair and Lichtenstein's method: an analysis alongside a randomized clinical study.

Authors:  G G Koning; J de Vries; G F Borm; L Koeslag; P W H E Vriens; C J H M van Laarhoven
Journal:  Hernia       Date:  2012-08-08       Impact factor: 4.739

6.  Long-term cost-minimization analysis comparing laparoscopic with open (Lichtenstein) inguinal hernia repair.

Authors:  A Eklund; P Carlsson; A Rosenblad; A Montgomery; L Bergkvist; C Rudberg
Journal:  Br J Surg       Date:  2010-05       Impact factor: 6.939

7.  Demographic, classificatory, and socioeconomic aspects of hernia repair in the United States.

Authors:  I M Rutkow; A W Robbins
Journal:  Surg Clin North Am       Date:  1993-06       Impact factor: 2.741

8.  Open "tension-free" repair of inguinal hernias: the Lichtenstein technique.

Authors:  P K Amid; A G Shulman; I L Lichtenstein
Journal:  Eur J Surg       Date:  1996-06

9.  Randomized clinical trial of chronic pain after the transinguinal preperitoneal technique compared with Lichtenstein's method for inguinal hernia repair.

Authors:  G G Koning; F Keus; L Koeslag; C L Cheung; M Avçi; C J H M van Laarhoven; P W H E Vriens
Journal:  Br J Surg       Date:  2012-10       Impact factor: 6.939

10.  [The 'Inguinal Hernia' guideline of the Association of Surgeons of the Netherlands].

Authors:  M P Simons; D de Lange; G L Beets; D van Geldere; H A Heij; P M Go
Journal:  Ned Tijdschr Geneeskd       Date:  2003-10-25
View more
  4 in total

1.  Comment to "One-stop endoscopic hernia surgery: efficient and satisfactory" Voorbrood et al. Hernia 19:395-400.

Authors:  W J Bökkerink; W L Akkersdijk; G G Koning
Journal:  Hernia       Date:  2016-02-04       Impact factor: 4.739

2.  Outcomes of surgery on patients with a clinically inapparent inguinal hernia as diagnosed by ultrasonography.

Authors:  L van Hout; W J V Bökkerink; M S Ibelings; J Heisterkamp; P W H E Vriens
Journal:  Hernia       Date:  2018-01-27       Impact factor: 4.739

3.  International guidelines for groin hernia management.

Authors: 
Journal:  Hernia       Date:  2018-01-12       Impact factor: 4.739

4.  Long-term results from a randomized comparison of open transinguinal preperitoneal hernia repair and the Lichtenstein method (TULIP trial).

Authors:  W J V Bökkerink; G G Koning; D Malagic; L van Hout; C J H M van Laarhoven; P W H E Vriens
Journal:  Br J Surg       Date:  2019-04-17       Impact factor: 6.939

  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.