Cargando…

A Cost-Utility Analysis of Mesh Prophylaxis in the Prevention of Incisional Hernias following Stoma Closure Surgery

Background: Stoma closure is a widely performed surgical procedure, with 6295 undertaken in England in 2018 alone. This procedure is associated with significant complications; incisional hernias are the most severe, occurring in 30% of patients. Complications place considerable financial burden on t...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Sheikh, Yusuf, Asunramu, Hareef, Low, Heather, Gakhar, Dev, Muthukumar, Keerthi, Yassin, Husam, de Preux, Laure
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: MDPI 2022
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9602752/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36294132
http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/ijerph192013553
_version_ 1784817394747703296
author Sheikh, Yusuf
Asunramu, Hareef
Low, Heather
Gakhar, Dev
Muthukumar, Keerthi
Yassin, Husam
de Preux, Laure
author_facet Sheikh, Yusuf
Asunramu, Hareef
Low, Heather
Gakhar, Dev
Muthukumar, Keerthi
Yassin, Husam
de Preux, Laure
author_sort Sheikh, Yusuf
collection PubMed
description Background: Stoma closure is a widely performed surgical procedure, with 6295 undertaken in England in 2018 alone. This procedure is associated with significant complications; incisional hernias are the most severe, occurring in 30% of patients. Complications place considerable financial burden on the NHS; hernia costs are estimated at GBP 114 million annually. As recent evidence (ROCSS, 2020) found that prophylactic meshes significantly reduce rates of incisional hernias following stoma closure surgery, an evaluation of this intervention vs. standard procedure is essential. Methods: A cost-utility analysis (CUA) was conducted using data from the ROCSS prospective multi-centre trial, which followed 790 patients, randomly assigned to mesh closure (n = 394) and standard closure (n = 396). Quality of life was assessed using mean EQ-5D-3L scores from the trial, and costs in GBP using UK-based sources over a 2-year time horizon. Results: The CUA yielded an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of GBP 128,356.25 per QALY. Additionally, three univariate sensitivity analyses were performed to test the robustness of the model. Conclusion: The results demonstrate an increased benefit with mesh prophylaxis, but at an increased cost. Although the intervention is cost-ineffective and greater than the ICER threshold of GBP 30,000/QALY (NICE), further investigation into mesh prophylaxis for at risk population groups is needed.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-9602752
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2022
publisher MDPI
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-96027522022-10-27 A Cost-Utility Analysis of Mesh Prophylaxis in the Prevention of Incisional Hernias following Stoma Closure Surgery Sheikh, Yusuf Asunramu, Hareef Low, Heather Gakhar, Dev Muthukumar, Keerthi Yassin, Husam de Preux, Laure Int J Environ Res Public Health Article Background: Stoma closure is a widely performed surgical procedure, with 6295 undertaken in England in 2018 alone. This procedure is associated with significant complications; incisional hernias are the most severe, occurring in 30% of patients. Complications place considerable financial burden on the NHS; hernia costs are estimated at GBP 114 million annually. As recent evidence (ROCSS, 2020) found that prophylactic meshes significantly reduce rates of incisional hernias following stoma closure surgery, an evaluation of this intervention vs. standard procedure is essential. Methods: A cost-utility analysis (CUA) was conducted using data from the ROCSS prospective multi-centre trial, which followed 790 patients, randomly assigned to mesh closure (n = 394) and standard closure (n = 396). Quality of life was assessed using mean EQ-5D-3L scores from the trial, and costs in GBP using UK-based sources over a 2-year time horizon. Results: The CUA yielded an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of GBP 128,356.25 per QALY. Additionally, three univariate sensitivity analyses were performed to test the robustness of the model. Conclusion: The results demonstrate an increased benefit with mesh prophylaxis, but at an increased cost. Although the intervention is cost-ineffective and greater than the ICER threshold of GBP 30,000/QALY (NICE), further investigation into mesh prophylaxis for at risk population groups is needed. MDPI 2022-10-19 /pmc/articles/PMC9602752/ /pubmed/36294132 http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/ijerph192013553 Text en © 2022 by the authors. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
spellingShingle Article
Sheikh, Yusuf
Asunramu, Hareef
Low, Heather
Gakhar, Dev
Muthukumar, Keerthi
Yassin, Husam
de Preux, Laure
A Cost-Utility Analysis of Mesh Prophylaxis in the Prevention of Incisional Hernias following Stoma Closure Surgery
title A Cost-Utility Analysis of Mesh Prophylaxis in the Prevention of Incisional Hernias following Stoma Closure Surgery
title_full A Cost-Utility Analysis of Mesh Prophylaxis in the Prevention of Incisional Hernias following Stoma Closure Surgery
title_fullStr A Cost-Utility Analysis of Mesh Prophylaxis in the Prevention of Incisional Hernias following Stoma Closure Surgery
title_full_unstemmed A Cost-Utility Analysis of Mesh Prophylaxis in the Prevention of Incisional Hernias following Stoma Closure Surgery
title_short A Cost-Utility Analysis of Mesh Prophylaxis in the Prevention of Incisional Hernias following Stoma Closure Surgery
title_sort cost-utility analysis of mesh prophylaxis in the prevention of incisional hernias following stoma closure surgery
topic Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9602752/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36294132
http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/ijerph192013553
work_keys_str_mv AT sheikhyusuf acostutilityanalysisofmeshprophylaxisinthepreventionofincisionalherniasfollowingstomaclosuresurgery
AT asunramuhareef acostutilityanalysisofmeshprophylaxisinthepreventionofincisionalherniasfollowingstomaclosuresurgery
AT lowheather acostutilityanalysisofmeshprophylaxisinthepreventionofincisionalherniasfollowingstomaclosuresurgery
AT gakhardev acostutilityanalysisofmeshprophylaxisinthepreventionofincisionalherniasfollowingstomaclosuresurgery
AT muthukumarkeerthi acostutilityanalysisofmeshprophylaxisinthepreventionofincisionalherniasfollowingstomaclosuresurgery
AT yassinhusam acostutilityanalysisofmeshprophylaxisinthepreventionofincisionalherniasfollowingstomaclosuresurgery
AT depreuxlaure acostutilityanalysisofmeshprophylaxisinthepreventionofincisionalherniasfollowingstomaclosuresurgery
AT sheikhyusuf costutilityanalysisofmeshprophylaxisinthepreventionofincisionalherniasfollowingstomaclosuresurgery
AT asunramuhareef costutilityanalysisofmeshprophylaxisinthepreventionofincisionalherniasfollowingstomaclosuresurgery
AT lowheather costutilityanalysisofmeshprophylaxisinthepreventionofincisionalherniasfollowingstomaclosuresurgery
AT gakhardev costutilityanalysisofmeshprophylaxisinthepreventionofincisionalherniasfollowingstomaclosuresurgery
AT muthukumarkeerthi costutilityanalysisofmeshprophylaxisinthepreventionofincisionalherniasfollowingstomaclosuresurgery
AT yassinhusam costutilityanalysisofmeshprophylaxisinthepreventionofincisionalherniasfollowingstomaclosuresurgery
AT depreuxlaure costutilityanalysisofmeshprophylaxisinthepreventionofincisionalherniasfollowingstomaclosuresurgery