Cost-Minimization Study of Glue versus Sutured Mesh Fixation in Laparoscopic Sacrocolpo(recto)pexy.

IF 2 4区 医学 Q2 OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY
Ann-Sophie Page, Cindy Vandoren, Jan Deprest
{"title":"Cost-Minimization Study of Glue versus Sutured Mesh Fixation in Laparoscopic Sacrocolpo(recto)pexy.","authors":"Ann-Sophie Page, Cindy Vandoren, Jan Deprest","doi":"10.1159/000545030","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>The objective of the study was to conduct a cost-minimization analysis of laparoscopic sacrocolpo(recto)pexy (LSCP) using either synthetic glue or sutures alone for mesh fixation.</p><p><strong>Design: </strong>A cost-minimization study comparing two single-center consecutive cohorts (n = 20 each), evaluating differences in consumables and operating room costs for LSCP, performed either with sutures alone or synthetic glue for mesh fixation (January 2021 to December 2021).</p><p><strong>Participants: </strong>All patients underwent LSCP using the same standardized technique performed by one of two gynecologic surgeons experienced in LSCP (≥50 procedures per year), both proficient in using sutures or glue for LSCP, to minimize any learning curve bias.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Consumables costs associated with mesh fixation were prospectively recorded. Additional patient data were extracted from the electronic medical record. Statistical analysis was performed using GraphPad Prism. The chi-square test or t test were applied as appropriate, with a significance level set at p < 0.05.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>In the sutures-only group, consumables costs were EUR 194.54 ± 38.76, compared to EUR 298.16 ± 31.59 in the glue group (p < 0.0001; 95% CI [81.80, 125.4]). The mean procedure time was significantly shorter in the glue group (34.6 ± 6.2 min vs. 51.3 ± 12.7 min; p < 0.0001; 95% CI [-23.19, -10.21]), reducing operating room maintenance costs by 32% (EUR 477.22 ± 85.63 vs. EUR 707.22 ± 175.14). Based on the consumables and operating room maintenance costs (EUR 826.35 per hour) and time usage, the sutures-only method cost EUR 901.76 ± 171.97 compared to EUR 775.37 ± 86.62 for the glue group. In our setting, this translates to a cost saving of EUR 126.39 per patient (-14%) when using glue (p < 0.0001; 95% CI [-214.6, -38.19]).</p><p><strong>Limitations: </strong>The numbers above are specific to our setting. Our findings are also specific to laparoscopic approaches and cannot be directly applied to robotic sacrocolpopexy as suturing times and operating room maintenance costs would differ significantly.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Using synthetic glue for mesh fixation increases consumables costs but reduces procedure time, resulting in overall cost savings that favor glue-based mesh fixation. These findings align with previous studies demonstrating reduced operation times with the use of glue. Our study is the first to formally assess and compare the costs of both techniques. We believe the overall cost saving is widely generalizable. To calculate the local impact, one can use the proportional differences reported here and substitute local consumables and operating room costs.</p>","PeriodicalId":12952,"journal":{"name":"Gynecologic and Obstetric Investigation","volume":" ","pages":"1-5"},"PeriodicalIF":2.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Gynecologic and Obstetric Investigation","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1159/000545030","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objectives: The objective of the study was to conduct a cost-minimization analysis of laparoscopic sacrocolpo(recto)pexy (LSCP) using either synthetic glue or sutures alone for mesh fixation.

Design: A cost-minimization study comparing two single-center consecutive cohorts (n = 20 each), evaluating differences in consumables and operating room costs for LSCP, performed either with sutures alone or synthetic glue for mesh fixation (January 2021 to December 2021).

Participants: All patients underwent LSCP using the same standardized technique performed by one of two gynecologic surgeons experienced in LSCP (≥50 procedures per year), both proficient in using sutures or glue for LSCP, to minimize any learning curve bias.

Methods: Consumables costs associated with mesh fixation were prospectively recorded. Additional patient data were extracted from the electronic medical record. Statistical analysis was performed using GraphPad Prism. The chi-square test or t test were applied as appropriate, with a significance level set at p < 0.05.

Results: In the sutures-only group, consumables costs were EUR 194.54 ± 38.76, compared to EUR 298.16 ± 31.59 in the glue group (p < 0.0001; 95% CI [81.80, 125.4]). The mean procedure time was significantly shorter in the glue group (34.6 ± 6.2 min vs. 51.3 ± 12.7 min; p < 0.0001; 95% CI [-23.19, -10.21]), reducing operating room maintenance costs by 32% (EUR 477.22 ± 85.63 vs. EUR 707.22 ± 175.14). Based on the consumables and operating room maintenance costs (EUR 826.35 per hour) and time usage, the sutures-only method cost EUR 901.76 ± 171.97 compared to EUR 775.37 ± 86.62 for the glue group. In our setting, this translates to a cost saving of EUR 126.39 per patient (-14%) when using glue (p < 0.0001; 95% CI [-214.6, -38.19]).

Limitations: The numbers above are specific to our setting. Our findings are also specific to laparoscopic approaches and cannot be directly applied to robotic sacrocolpopexy as suturing times and operating room maintenance costs would differ significantly.

Conclusions: Using synthetic glue for mesh fixation increases consumables costs but reduces procedure time, resulting in overall cost savings that favor glue-based mesh fixation. These findings align with previous studies demonstrating reduced operation times with the use of glue. Our study is the first to formally assess and compare the costs of both techniques. We believe the overall cost saving is widely generalizable. To calculate the local impact, one can use the proportional differences reported here and substitute local consumables and operating room costs.

腹腔镜骶colo (recto)固定术中胶水与缝合网片固定的成本最小化研究。
目的:对腹腔镜骶结肠(直肠)固定(LSCP)采用合成胶或单独缝线进行补片固定的成本最小化分析。设计:一项成本最小化研究,比较两个单中心连续队列(每个队列n=20),评估使用单独缝线或合成胶进行网片固定的腹腔镜骶colo (recto)固定术的耗材和手术室成本差异(2021年1月至2021年12月)。参与者:所有接受LSCP的患者使用相同的标准化技术,由两名有LSCP经验(每年≥50例)的妇科外科医生中的一名执行,他们都精通使用缝合线或胶水进行LSCP,以尽量减少任何学习曲线偏差。方法:前瞻性记录与网片固定相关的耗材成本。从电子病历中提取了其他患者数据。使用GraphPad Prism进行统计分析。酌情采用卡方检验或t检验,显著性水平设为p < 0.05。结果单纯缝合组耗材成本为€194.54±38.76,而胶水组为€298.16±31.59 (p < 0.0001;95% ci[81.80, 125.4])。胶组平均手术时间明显缩短(34.6±6.2分钟vs 51.3±12.7分钟);P < 0.0001;95% CI[-23.19, -10.21]),手术室维护成本降低32%(€477.22±85.63 vs€707.22±175.14)。综合耗材、手术室维护费用(826.35欧元/小时)和时间使用情况,单纯缝线组的成本为901.76±171.97欧元,而胶水组的成本为775.37±86.62欧元。在我们的环境中,当使用胶水时,这意味着每位患者节省了126.39欧元(-14%)的成本(p < 0.0001;95% ci[-214.6, -38.19])。以上数字是特定于我们的设置的。我们的研究结果也仅限于腹腔镜方法,不能直接应用于机器人骶骶固定术,因为缝合时间和手术室维护费用会有很大不同。结论使用合成胶固定网状物增加了耗材成本,但减少了操作时间,从而节省了总体成本,有利于基于胶水的网状物固定。这些发现与先前的研究一致,证明使用胶水可以减少手术时间。我们的研究首次正式评估和比较了这两种技术的成本。我们相信整体的成本节约是可以广泛推广的。为了计算当地的影响,可以使用这里报告的比例差异,并替换当地的消耗品和手术室成本。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.20
自引率
4.80%
发文量
44
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: This journal covers the most active and promising areas of current research in gynecology and obstetrics. Invited, well-referenced reviews by noted experts keep readers in touch with the general framework and direction of international study. Original papers report selected experimental and clinical investigations in all fields related to gynecology, obstetrics and reproduction. Short communications are published to allow immediate discussion of new data. The international and interdisciplinary character of this periodical provides an avenue to less accessible sources and to worldwide research for investigators and practitioners.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信