Actas urologicas espanolas · 2016
Cost analysis of surgical treatment for pelvic organ prolapse by laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy or transvaginal mesh.
Сравнительное исследованиеСтатьяНазвание 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.
Carracedo D, López-Fando L, Sánchez M D, Jiménez M Á, Gómez J M, Laso I, Rodríguez M Á, Burgos F J
Аннотация
OBJECTIVES: The objective of this study is to compare direct costs of repairing pelvic organ prolapse by laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy (LS) against vaginal mesh (VM). Our hypothesis is the correction of pelvic organ prolapse by LS has a similar cost per procedure compared to VM.
MATERIAL AND METHODS: We made a retrospective comparative analysis of medium cost per procedure of first 69 consecutive LS versus first 69 consecutive VM surgeries. We calculate direct cost for each procedure: structural outlays, personal, operating room occupation, hospital stay, perishable or inventory material and prosthetic material. Medium cost per procedure were calculated for each group, with a 95% confidence interval.
RESULTS: LS group has a higher cost related to a longer length of surgery, higher operating room occupation and anesthesia; VM group has a higher cost due to longer hospital stay and more expensive prosthetic material. Globally, LS has a lower medium cost per procedure in comparison to VM (5,985.7 €±1,550.8 € vs. 6,534.3 €±1,015.5 €), although it did not achieve statistical signification.
CONCLUSIONS: In our midst, pelvic organ prolapse surgical correction by LS has at least similar cost per procedure compared to VM.
MATERIAL AND METHODS: We made a retrospective comparative analysis of medium cost per procedure of first 69 consecutive LS versus first 69 consecutive VM surgeries. We calculate direct cost for each procedure: structural outlays, personal, operating room occupation, hospital stay, perishable or inventory material and prosthetic material. Medium cost per procedure were calculated for each group, with a 95% confidence interval.
RESULTS: LS group has a higher cost related to a longer length of surgery, higher operating room occupation and anesthesia; VM group has a higher cost due to longer hospital stay and more expensive prosthetic material. Globally, LS has a lower medium cost per procedure in comparison to VM (5,985.7 €±1,550.8 € vs. 6,534.3 €±1,015.5 €), although it did not achieve statistical signification.
CONCLUSIONS: In our midst, pelvic organ prolapse surgical correction by LS has at least similar cost per procedure compared to VM.