荷兰一家医院小儿腹股沟疝修补四种手术技术的成本分析

Roxanne Eurlings , Merel L. Kimman , Lloyd Brandts , Ruben G.J. Visschers , Wim G. van Gemert
{"title":"荷兰一家医院小儿腹股沟疝修补四种手术技术的成本分析","authors":"Roxanne Eurlings ,&nbsp;Merel L. Kimman ,&nbsp;Lloyd Brandts ,&nbsp;Ruben G.J. Visschers ,&nbsp;Wim G. van Gemert","doi":"10.1016/j.yjpso.2025.100217","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Introduction</h3><div>Pediatric inguinal hernia repair (IHR) can be performed using open repair, laparoscopic approaches such as percutaneous internal ring suture (PIRS) or conventional laparoscopic IHR (LIHR) with N-/Z-suture, and robot-assisted IHR (RIHR). While extensive literature on clinical outcomes exists, cost data remain scarce. This study aims to determine the real costs of these four techniques.</div></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><div>A retrospective cohort of consecutive patients with pediatric IHR in the past five years (2019–2023) was analyzed. Patients were grouped by technique. Individual one-year costs were collected, including pre-operative, per-operative, postoperative and complication costs. Kruskal-Wallis test was performed to compare costs between techniques. Multivariable-adjusted linear regression analyses were performed to identify factors associated with (non-OR) costs.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>184 patients were included in four groups: PIRS (<em>n</em> = 56), LIHR (<em>n</em> = 56), Open (<em>n</em> = 50), RIHR (<em>n</em> = 22). Total OR cost for PIRS were significantly lower than for the other laparoscopic techniques (€1915 vs. €2414 for LIHR; <em>p</em> = 0.001 and €3340 RIHR; <em>p</em> = 0.000), but not for the open technique (€1915 vs. €1971; <em>p</em> = 1.000). They were the highest for RIHR, probably due to prolonged anesthesia time, which is explained by docking of the robotic system. Other costs of the treatment journey (excluding OR costs) were significantly associated with gestational age (4.2 % increase per week the patient was born earlier; <em>p</em> = 0.001), age at surgery (7 % increase per year the patient was younger; <em>p</em> = 0.001), reducible incarceration (40.7 % increase; <em>p</em> = 0.037) and recurrence (124.5 % increase; <em>p</em> = 0.001). Hospitalization costs were significantly higher for the open technique (38.8 % increase; <em>p</em> = 0.030).</div></div><div><h3>Discussion and conclusion</h3><div>This retrospective analysis shows that the PIRS technique is related to lower OR costs. Other (non-OR) costs are highly dependent on patient characteristics and clinical outcomes. Prospective randomized studies are needed to confirm these findings and guide optimal decision making concerning surgical technique with an adequate cost-effectiveness study.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":100821,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Pediatric Surgery Open","volume":"11 ","pages":"Article 100217"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-06-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Cost analysis of four surgical techniques for pediatric inguinal hernia repair in a Dutch hospital\",\"authors\":\"Roxanne Eurlings ,&nbsp;Merel L. Kimman ,&nbsp;Lloyd Brandts ,&nbsp;Ruben G.J. Visschers ,&nbsp;Wim G. van Gemert\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.yjpso.2025.100217\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><h3>Introduction</h3><div>Pediatric inguinal hernia repair (IHR) can be performed using open repair, laparoscopic approaches such as percutaneous internal ring suture (PIRS) or conventional laparoscopic IHR (LIHR) with N-/Z-suture, and robot-assisted IHR (RIHR). While extensive literature on clinical outcomes exists, cost data remain scarce. This study aims to determine the real costs of these four techniques.</div></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><div>A retrospective cohort of consecutive patients with pediatric IHR in the past five years (2019–2023) was analyzed. Patients were grouped by technique. Individual one-year costs were collected, including pre-operative, per-operative, postoperative and complication costs. Kruskal-Wallis test was performed to compare costs between techniques. Multivariable-adjusted linear regression analyses were performed to identify factors associated with (non-OR) costs.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>184 patients were included in four groups: PIRS (<em>n</em> = 56), LIHR (<em>n</em> = 56), Open (<em>n</em> = 50), RIHR (<em>n</em> = 22). Total OR cost for PIRS were significantly lower than for the other laparoscopic techniques (€1915 vs. €2414 for LIHR; <em>p</em> = 0.001 and €3340 RIHR; <em>p</em> = 0.000), but not for the open technique (€1915 vs. €1971; <em>p</em> = 1.000). They were the highest for RIHR, probably due to prolonged anesthesia time, which is explained by docking of the robotic system. Other costs of the treatment journey (excluding OR costs) were significantly associated with gestational age (4.2 % increase per week the patient was born earlier; <em>p</em> = 0.001), age at surgery (7 % increase per year the patient was younger; <em>p</em> = 0.001), reducible incarceration (40.7 % increase; <em>p</em> = 0.037) and recurrence (124.5 % increase; <em>p</em> = 0.001). Hospitalization costs were significantly higher for the open technique (38.8 % increase; <em>p</em> = 0.030).</div></div><div><h3>Discussion and conclusion</h3><div>This retrospective analysis shows that the PIRS technique is related to lower OR costs. Other (non-OR) costs are highly dependent on patient characteristics and clinical outcomes. Prospective randomized studies are needed to confirm these findings and guide optimal decision making concerning surgical technique with an adequate cost-effectiveness study.</div></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":100821,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Pediatric Surgery Open\",\"volume\":\"11 \",\"pages\":\"Article 100217\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-06-18\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Pediatric Surgery Open\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2949711625000267\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Pediatric Surgery Open","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2949711625000267","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

儿科腹股沟疝修补术(IHR)可以采用开放式修补术、经皮内环缝合(PIRS)等腹腔镜方法或N / z缝合的传统腹腔镜IHR (LIHR)和机器人辅助IHR (RIHR)。虽然存在大量关于临床结果的文献,但成本数据仍然很少。本研究旨在确定这四种技术的实际成本。方法对过去5年(2019-2023年)连续发生的儿童IHR患者进行回顾性队列分析。按技术分组。收集个人一年的费用,包括术前、术中、术后和并发症费用。采用Kruskal-Wallis检验比较不同技术的成本。进行多变量调整线性回归分析以确定与(非or)成本相关的因素。结果184例患者分为4组:PIRS(56例)、LIHR(56例)、Open(50例)、RIHR(22例)。PIRS的总手术室费用明显低于其他腹腔镜技术(1915欧元vs. LIHR 2414欧元;p = 0.001和€3340 RIHR;P = 0.000),但开放式技术则不然(1915欧元vs 1971欧元;P = 1.000)。他们的RIHR最高,可能是由于麻醉时间延长,这可以通过对接机器人系统来解释。治疗过程的其他费用(不包括手术室费用)与胎龄显著相关(患者出生较早每周增加4.2%;P = 0.001)、手术年龄(年轻患者每年增加7%;P = 0.001),减少监禁(增加40.7%;P = 0.037)和复发率(增加124.5%;P = 0.001)。开放技术的住院费用明显更高(增加38.8%;P = 0.030)。讨论与结论本回顾性分析表明PIRS技术与较低的手术成本有关。其他(非手术室)费用高度依赖于患者特征和临床结果。需要前瞻性随机研究来证实这些发现,并通过充分的成本效益研究来指导有关手术技术的最佳决策。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Cost analysis of four surgical techniques for pediatric inguinal hernia repair in a Dutch hospital

Introduction

Pediatric inguinal hernia repair (IHR) can be performed using open repair, laparoscopic approaches such as percutaneous internal ring suture (PIRS) or conventional laparoscopic IHR (LIHR) with N-/Z-suture, and robot-assisted IHR (RIHR). While extensive literature on clinical outcomes exists, cost data remain scarce. This study aims to determine the real costs of these four techniques.

Methods

A retrospective cohort of consecutive patients with pediatric IHR in the past five years (2019–2023) was analyzed. Patients were grouped by technique. Individual one-year costs were collected, including pre-operative, per-operative, postoperative and complication costs. Kruskal-Wallis test was performed to compare costs between techniques. Multivariable-adjusted linear regression analyses were performed to identify factors associated with (non-OR) costs.

Results

184 patients were included in four groups: PIRS (n = 56), LIHR (n = 56), Open (n = 50), RIHR (n = 22). Total OR cost for PIRS were significantly lower than for the other laparoscopic techniques (€1915 vs. €2414 for LIHR; p = 0.001 and €3340 RIHR; p = 0.000), but not for the open technique (€1915 vs. €1971; p = 1.000). They were the highest for RIHR, probably due to prolonged anesthesia time, which is explained by docking of the robotic system. Other costs of the treatment journey (excluding OR costs) were significantly associated with gestational age (4.2 % increase per week the patient was born earlier; p = 0.001), age at surgery (7 % increase per year the patient was younger; p = 0.001), reducible incarceration (40.7 % increase; p = 0.037) and recurrence (124.5 % increase; p = 0.001). Hospitalization costs were significantly higher for the open technique (38.8 % increase; p = 0.030).

Discussion and conclusion

This retrospective analysis shows that the PIRS technique is related to lower OR costs. Other (non-OR) costs are highly dependent on patient characteristics and clinical outcomes. Prospective randomized studies are needed to confirm these findings and guide optimal decision making concerning surgical technique with an adequate cost-effectiveness study.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信