World neurosurgery · 2024
Leukocyte- and Platelet-Rich Fibrin versus Commercially Available Fibrin Sealants in Elective Cranial Surgery: A Cost-Minimization Analysis.
СтатьяРандомизированное исследованиеСравнительное исследованиеНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Coucke Birgit, Gilissen Liesbeth, Luyten Jeroen, van Loon Johannes, Van Gerven Laura, Theys Tom
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Previous findings from a clinical trial demonstrated noninferiority of Leukocyte- and platelet-rich fibrin (L-PRF) compared to commercially available fibrin sealants in preventing postoperative cerebrospinal fluid leakage, necessitating intervention. This cost-effectiveness evaluation aims to assess the value-for-money of both techniques for dural closure in supratentorial and infratentorial surgeries.
METHODS: Cost-effectiveness was estimated from a health care payer's perspective alongside a randomized clinical trial comprising 328 patients. The analysis focused on clinical and health-related quality of life outcomes, as well as direct medical costs including inpatient costs, imaging and laboratory costs, and outpatient follow up costs up to twelve weeks after surgery.
RESULTS: Clinical and health-related quality of life data showed no significant differences between L-PRF (EuroQol five dimensions questionnaire 0.75 ± 0.25, 36-item Short Form Survey 63.93% ± 20.42) and control (EuroQol five dimensions questionnaire 0.72 ± 0.22, 36-item Short Form Survey 60.93% ± 20.78) groups. Pharmaceutical expenses during initial hospitalization were significantly lower in the L-PRF group (€190.4, interquartile range 149.9) than in the control group (€394.4, interquartile range 364.3), while other cost categories did not show any significant differences, resulting in an average cost advantage of €204 per patient favoring L-PRF.
CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrates L-PRF as a cost-effective alternative for commercially available fibrin sealants in dural closure. Implementing L-PRF can lead to substantial cost savings, particularly considering the frequency of these procedures.
METHODS: Cost-effectiveness was estimated from a health care payer's perspective alongside a randomized clinical trial comprising 328 patients. The analysis focused on clinical and health-related quality of life outcomes, as well as direct medical costs including inpatient costs, imaging and laboratory costs, and outpatient follow up costs up to twelve weeks after surgery.
RESULTS: Clinical and health-related quality of life data showed no significant differences between L-PRF (EuroQol five dimensions questionnaire 0.75 ± 0.25, 36-item Short Form Survey 63.93% ± 20.42) and control (EuroQol five dimensions questionnaire 0.72 ± 0.22, 36-item Short Form Survey 60.93% ± 20.78) groups. Pharmaceutical expenses during initial hospitalization were significantly lower in the L-PRF group (€190.4, interquartile range 149.9) than in the control group (€394.4, interquartile range 364.3), while other cost categories did not show any significant differences, resulting in an average cost advantage of €204 per patient favoring L-PRF.
CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrates L-PRF as a cost-effective alternative for commercially available fibrin sealants in dural closure. Implementing L-PRF can lead to substantial cost savings, particularly considering the frequency of these procedures.