Cargando…

Cost-analysis and quality of life after laparoscopic and robotic ventral mesh rectopexy for posterior compartment prolapse: a randomized trial

BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to assess, whether robotic-assistance in ventral mesh rectopexy adds benefit to laparoscopy in terms of health-related quality of life (HRQoL), cost-effectiveness and anatomical and functional outcome. METHODS: A prospective randomized study was conducted on pat...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Mäkelä-Kaikkonen, J., Rautio, T., Ohinmaa, A., Koivurova, S., Ohtonen, P., Sintonen, H., Mäkelä, J.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Springer International Publishing 2019
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6620369/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31069557
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10151-019-01991-2
_version_ 1783434035304857600
author Mäkelä-Kaikkonen, J.
Rautio, T.
Ohinmaa, A.
Koivurova, S.
Ohtonen, P.
Sintonen, H.
Mäkelä, J.
author_facet Mäkelä-Kaikkonen, J.
Rautio, T.
Ohinmaa, A.
Koivurova, S.
Ohtonen, P.
Sintonen, H.
Mäkelä, J.
author_sort Mäkelä-Kaikkonen, J.
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to assess, whether robotic-assistance in ventral mesh rectopexy adds benefit to laparoscopy in terms of health-related quality of life (HRQoL), cost-effectiveness and anatomical and functional outcome. METHODS: A prospective randomized study was conducted on patients who underwent robot-assisted ventral mesh rectopexy (RVMR) or laparoscopic ventral mesh rectopexy (LVMR) for internal or external rectal prolapse at Oulu University Hospital, Finland, recruited in February–May 2012. The primary outcomes were health care costs from the hospital perspective and HRQoL measured by the 15D-instrument. Secondary outcomes included anatomical outcome assessed by pelvic organ prolapse quantification method and functional outcome by symptom questionnaires at 24 months follow-up. RESULTS: There were 30 females (mean age 62.5 years, SD 11.2), 16 in the RVMR group and 14 in the LVMR group. The surgery-related costs of the RVMR were 1.5 times higher than the cost of the LVMR. At 3 months the changes in HRQoL were ‘much better’ (RVMR) and ‘slightly better’ (LVMR) but declined in both groups at 2 years (RVMR vs. LVMR, p > 0.05). The cost-effectiveness was poor at 2 years for both techniques, but if the outcomes were assumed to last for 5 years, it improved significantly. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for the RVMR compared to LVMR was €39,982/quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) at 2 years and improved to €16,707/QALYs at 5 years. Posterior wall anatomy was restored similarly in both groups. The subjective satisfaction rate was 87% in the RVMR group and 69% in the LVMR group (p = 0.83). CONCLUSIONS: Although more expensive than LVMR in the short term, RVMR is cost-effective in long-term. The minimally invasive VMR improves pelvic floor function, sexual function and restores posterior compartment anatomy. The effect on HRQoL is minor, with no differences between techniques.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-6620369
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2019
publisher Springer International Publishing
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-66203692019-07-28 Cost-analysis and quality of life after laparoscopic and robotic ventral mesh rectopexy for posterior compartment prolapse: a randomized trial Mäkelä-Kaikkonen, J. Rautio, T. Ohinmaa, A. Koivurova, S. Ohtonen, P. Sintonen, H. Mäkelä, J. Tech Coloproctol Original Article BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to assess, whether robotic-assistance in ventral mesh rectopexy adds benefit to laparoscopy in terms of health-related quality of life (HRQoL), cost-effectiveness and anatomical and functional outcome. METHODS: A prospective randomized study was conducted on patients who underwent robot-assisted ventral mesh rectopexy (RVMR) or laparoscopic ventral mesh rectopexy (LVMR) for internal or external rectal prolapse at Oulu University Hospital, Finland, recruited in February–May 2012. The primary outcomes were health care costs from the hospital perspective and HRQoL measured by the 15D-instrument. Secondary outcomes included anatomical outcome assessed by pelvic organ prolapse quantification method and functional outcome by symptom questionnaires at 24 months follow-up. RESULTS: There were 30 females (mean age 62.5 years, SD 11.2), 16 in the RVMR group and 14 in the LVMR group. The surgery-related costs of the RVMR were 1.5 times higher than the cost of the LVMR. At 3 months the changes in HRQoL were ‘much better’ (RVMR) and ‘slightly better’ (LVMR) but declined in both groups at 2 years (RVMR vs. LVMR, p > 0.05). The cost-effectiveness was poor at 2 years for both techniques, but if the outcomes were assumed to last for 5 years, it improved significantly. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for the RVMR compared to LVMR was €39,982/quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) at 2 years and improved to €16,707/QALYs at 5 years. Posterior wall anatomy was restored similarly in both groups. The subjective satisfaction rate was 87% in the RVMR group and 69% in the LVMR group (p = 0.83). CONCLUSIONS: Although more expensive than LVMR in the short term, RVMR is cost-effective in long-term. The minimally invasive VMR improves pelvic floor function, sexual function and restores posterior compartment anatomy. The effect on HRQoL is minor, with no differences between techniques. Springer International Publishing 2019-05-08 2019 /pmc/articles/PMC6620369/ /pubmed/31069557 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10151-019-01991-2 Text en © The Author(s) 2019 Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made.
spellingShingle Original Article
Mäkelä-Kaikkonen, J.
Rautio, T.
Ohinmaa, A.
Koivurova, S.
Ohtonen, P.
Sintonen, H.
Mäkelä, J.
Cost-analysis and quality of life after laparoscopic and robotic ventral mesh rectopexy for posterior compartment prolapse: a randomized trial
title Cost-analysis and quality of life after laparoscopic and robotic ventral mesh rectopexy for posterior compartment prolapse: a randomized trial
title_full Cost-analysis and quality of life after laparoscopic and robotic ventral mesh rectopexy for posterior compartment prolapse: a randomized trial
title_fullStr Cost-analysis and quality of life after laparoscopic and robotic ventral mesh rectopexy for posterior compartment prolapse: a randomized trial
title_full_unstemmed Cost-analysis and quality of life after laparoscopic and robotic ventral mesh rectopexy for posterior compartment prolapse: a randomized trial
title_short Cost-analysis and quality of life after laparoscopic and robotic ventral mesh rectopexy for posterior compartment prolapse: a randomized trial
title_sort cost-analysis and quality of life after laparoscopic and robotic ventral mesh rectopexy for posterior compartment prolapse: a randomized trial
topic Original Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6620369/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31069557
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10151-019-01991-2
work_keys_str_mv AT makelakaikkonenj costanalysisandqualityoflifeafterlaparoscopicandroboticventralmeshrectopexyforposteriorcompartmentprolapsearandomizedtrial
AT rautiot costanalysisandqualityoflifeafterlaparoscopicandroboticventralmeshrectopexyforposteriorcompartmentprolapsearandomizedtrial
AT ohinmaaa costanalysisandqualityoflifeafterlaparoscopicandroboticventralmeshrectopexyforposteriorcompartmentprolapsearandomizedtrial
AT koivurovas costanalysisandqualityoflifeafterlaparoscopicandroboticventralmeshrectopexyforposteriorcompartmentprolapsearandomizedtrial
AT ohtonenp costanalysisandqualityoflifeafterlaparoscopicandroboticventralmeshrectopexyforposteriorcompartmentprolapsearandomizedtrial
AT sintonenh costanalysisandqualityoflifeafterlaparoscopicandroboticventralmeshrectopexyforposteriorcompartmentprolapsearandomizedtrial
AT makelaj costanalysisandqualityoflifeafterlaparoscopicandroboticventralmeshrectopexyforposteriorcompartmentprolapsearandomizedtrial