Literature DB >> 28069399

Costs and resource use following defunctioning stoma in low anterior resection for cancer - A long-term analysis of a randomized multicenter trial.

H Floodeen1, O Hallböök2, L A Hagberg3, P Matthiessen4.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Defunctioning stoma in low anterior resection (LAR) for rectal cancer can prevent major complications, but overall cost-effectiveness for the healthcare provider is unknown. This study compared inpatient healthcare resources and costs within 5 years of LAR between two randomized groups of patients undergoing LAR with and without defunctioning stoma.
METHOD: Five-year follow-up of a randomized, multicenter trial on LAR (NCT 00636948) with (stoma; n = 116) or without (no stoma; n = 118) defunctioning stoma comparing inpatient healthcare resources and costs. Unplanned stoma formation, days with stoma, length of hospital stay, reoperations, and total associated inpatient costs were analyzed.
RESULTS: Average costs were € 21.663 per patient with defunctioning stoma and € 15.922 per patient without defunctioning stoma within 5 years of LAR, resulting in an average cost-saving of € 5.741. There was no difference between groups regarding the total number of days with any stoma (stoma = 33 398 vs. no stoma = 34 068). The total number of unplanned reoperations were 70 (no stoma) and 32 (stoma); p < 0.001. In the group randomized to no stoma at LAR, 30.5% (36/118) required an unplanned stoma later.
CONCLUSION: Randomization to defunctioning stoma in LAR was more expensive than no stoma, despite the cost-savings associated with a reduced frequency of anastomotic leakage. Both groups required the same total number of days with a stoma within five years of LAR.
Copyright © 2016 Elsevier Ltd, BASO ~ The Association for Cancer Surgery, and the European Society of Surgical Oncology. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Anastomotic leak; Costs and cost analysis; Defunctioning stoma; Health resources; Rectal cancer

Mesh:

Year:  2016        PMID: 28069399     DOI: 10.1016/j.ejso.2016.12.003

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Eur J Surg Oncol        ISSN: 0748-7983            Impact factor:   4.424


  8 in total

1.  First, Do No Harm: Rethinking Routine Diversion in Sphincter-Preserving Rectal Cancer Resection.

Authors:  William C Chapman; Melanie Subramanian; Senthil Jayarajan; Bilal Makhdoom; Matthew G Mutch; Steven Hunt; Matthew L Silviera; Sean C Glasgow; Margaret A Olsen; Paul E Wise
Journal:  J Am Coll Surg       Date:  2019-01-09       Impact factor: 6.113

2.  Ghost Ileostomy: Safe and Cost-effective Alternative to Ileostomy After Rectal Resection for Deep Infiltrating Endometriosis.

Authors:  Alberto Vega Hernández; Jakob Otten; Hildegard Christ; Christoph Ulrici; Elvin Piriyev; Sebastian Ludwig; Claudia Rudroff
Journal:  In Vivo       Date:  2022 May-Jun       Impact factor: 2.406

Review 3.  Multidisciplinary management of elderly patients with rectal cancer: recommendations from the SICG (Italian Society of Geriatric Surgery), SIFIPAC (Italian Society of Surgical Pathophysiology), SICE (Italian Society of Endoscopic Surgery and new technologies), and the WSES (World Society of Emergency Surgery) International Consensus Project.

Authors:  Mauro Podda; Patricia Sylla; Gianluca Baiocchi; Michel Adamina; Vanni Agnoletti; Ferdinando Agresta; Luca Ansaloni; Alberto Arezzo; Nicola Avenia; Walter Biffl; Antonio Biondi; Simona Bui; Fabio C Campanile; Paolo Carcoforo; Claudia Commisso; Antonio Crucitti; Nicola De'Angelis; Gian Luigi De'Angelis; Massimo De Filippo; Belinda De Simone; Salomone Di Saverio; Giorgio Ercolani; Gustavo P Fraga; Francesco Gabrielli; Federica Gaiani; Mario Guerrieri; Angelo Guttadauro; Yoram Kluger; Ari K Leppaniemi; Andrea Loffredo; Tiziana Meschi; Ernest E Moore; Monica Ortenzi; Francesco Pata; Dario Parini; Adolfo Pisanu; Gilberto Poggioli; Andrea Polistena; Alessandro Puzziello; Fabio Rondelli; Massimo Sartelli; Neil Smart; Michael E Sugrue; Patricia Tejedor; Marco Vacante; Federico Coccolini; Justin Davies; Fausto Catena
Journal:  World J Emerg Surg       Date:  2021-07-02       Impact factor: 5.469

4.  Defunctioning ileostomy reduces leakage rate in rectal cancer surgery - systematic review and meta-analysis.

Authors:  Magdalena Pisarska; Natalia Gajewska; Piotr Małczak; Michał Wysocki; Jan Witowski; Grzegorz Torbicz; Piotr Major; Magdalena Mizera; Marcin Dembiński; Marcin Migaczewski; Andrzej Budzyński; Michał Pędziwiatr
Journal:  Oncotarget       Date:  2018-04-17

5.  Cost analysis in a randomized trial of early closure of a temporary ileostomy after rectal resection for cancer (EASY trial).

Authors:  Jennifer Park; Eva Angenete; David Bock; Adiela Correa-Marinez; Anne K Danielsen; Jacob Gehrman; Eva Haglind; Jens E Jansen; Stefan Skullman; Anette Wedin; Jacob Rosenberg
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2019-03-25       Impact factor: 4.584

6.  The usefulness of transanal tube for reducing anastomotic leak in mid rectal cancer: compared to diverting stoma.

Authors:  Seok Hyeon Cho; In Kyu Lee; Yoon Suk Lee; Min Ki Kim
Journal:  Ann Surg Treat Res       Date:  2021-02-01       Impact factor: 1.859

7.  Transanal drainage tube: alternative option to defunctioning stoma in rectal cancer surgery?

Authors:  Fabio Carboni; Mario Valle; Giovanni Battista Levi Sandri; Manuel Giofrè; Orietta Federici; Settimio Zazza; Alfredo Garofalo
Journal:  Transl Gastroenterol Hepatol       Date:  2020-01-05

Review 8.  Updates of Risk Factors for Anastomotic Leakage after Colorectal Surgery.

Authors:  Eugenia Claudia Zarnescu; Narcis Octavian Zarnescu; Radu Costea
Journal:  Diagnostics (Basel)       Date:  2021-12-17
  8 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.