Journal of pediatric surgery · 2013
Efficacy of Seprafilm for preventing adhesive bowel obstruction and cost-benefit analysis in pediatric patients undergoing laparotomy.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
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.
Inoue Mikihiro, Uchida Keiichi, Otake Kohei, Nagano Yuka, Ide Shozo, Hashimoto Kiyoshi, Matsushita Kohei, Koike Yuhki, Mohri Yasuhiko, Kusunoki Masato
Аннотация
PURPOSE: This aim of the study is to determine whether the use of Seprafilm reduces the incidence and the medical costs of adhesive bowel obstruction (ABO) in children.
METHODS: Pediatric patients undergoing laparotomy were prospectively assigned to the Seprafilm group, n = 441). A historical control group consisted of children without using Seprafilm (n = 409). The incidence of ABO during a 24-month follow-up period was compared between the groups. To clarify the cost-benefit relations, expenses for Seprafilm and medical costs for hospitalization related to ABO in the Seprafilm group were compared with the ABO-associated hospitalization costs in the control group.
RESULTS: The cumulative incidence rate of ABO in the control group was significantly higher than in the Seprafilm group (4.9% vs. 2.0%, p = 0.015). Nearly all cases that required adhesiolysis had adhesions to areas other than the incision in both groups. In cost-benefit analysis, cost per patient was $105 higher in the control group than in the Seprafilm group, but this did not reach significance (p = 0.63).
CONCLUSIONS: Seprafilm reduces the incidence of ABO in the pediatric patients undergoing laparotomy. Although associated medical costs in the Seprafilm group were not significantly reduced, use of Seprafilm did not lead to an increase in cost. Wider range of Seprafilm application or an additional anti-adhesion device may help in preventing adhesion to areas other than the incision.
METHODS: Pediatric patients undergoing laparotomy were prospectively assigned to the Seprafilm group, n = 441). A historical control group consisted of children without using Seprafilm (n = 409). The incidence of ABO during a 24-month follow-up period was compared between the groups. To clarify the cost-benefit relations, expenses for Seprafilm and medical costs for hospitalization related to ABO in the Seprafilm group were compared with the ABO-associated hospitalization costs in the control group.
RESULTS: The cumulative incidence rate of ABO in the control group was significantly higher than in the Seprafilm group (4.9% vs. 2.0%, p = 0.015). Nearly all cases that required adhesiolysis had adhesions to areas other than the incision in both groups. In cost-benefit analysis, cost per patient was $105 higher in the control group than in the Seprafilm group, but this did not reach significance (p = 0.63).
CONCLUSIONS: Seprafilm reduces the incidence of ABO in the pediatric patients undergoing laparotomy. Although associated medical costs in the Seprafilm group were not significantly reduced, use of Seprafilm did not lead to an increase in cost. Wider range of Seprafilm application or an additional anti-adhesion device may help in preventing adhesion to areas other than the incision.