Search

Dorsal wrist ganglions are treated commonly with aspiration, or open or arthroscopic excision in operating room (OR) or procedure room (PR) settings. As it remains unclear which treatment strategy is most cost-effective in yielding cyst resolution, our purpose was to perform a formal cost-minimization analysis from the societal perspective in this context. A microsimulation decision analytic model evaluating 5 treatment strategies for dorsal wrist ganglions was developed, ending in either resolution or a single failed open revision surgical excision. Strategies included immediate open excision in the OR, immediate open excision in the PR, immediate arthroscopic excision in the OR, or 1 or 2 aspirations before each of the surgical options. Recurrence and complications rates were pooled from the literature for each treatment type. One-way sensitivity and threshold analyses were performed. The most cost-minimal strategy was 2 aspiration attempts before open surgical excision in the PR setting ($1,603 ± 1,595 per resolved case), followed by 2 aspirations before open excision in the OR ($1,969 ± 2,165 per resolved case). Immediate arthroscopic excision was the costliest strategy ($6,539 ± 264 per resolved case). Single aspiration preoperatively was more cost-minimal than any form of immediate surgery ($2,918 ± 306 and $4,188 ± 306 per resolved case performed in the PR and OR, respectively). From the societal perspective, performing 2 aspirations before surgical excision in the PR setting was the most cost-minimal treatment strategy, although in reference to surgeons who do not perform this procedure in the PR setting, open excision in the OR was nearly as cost-effective. As patient preferences may preclude routinely performing 2 aspirations, performing at least 1 aspiration before surgical excision improves the cost-effectiveness of dorsal wrist ganglions treatment. Economic Decision Analysis II. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aim: The aim of this study was to compare the costs of management of moderate to severe infections in patients treated with imipenem/cilastatin (IC) and meropenem (MEM). Pharmacoeconomic studies in Saudi Arabia are scarce. The current hospital formulary contains 2 carbapenems: IC and MEM. These antibiotics share a similar spectrum of activity. There are conflicting reviews with regard to the relative cost-effectiveness of these two agents. Methods: A retrospective, single-centre cohort study of 88 patients of IC versus MEM in moderate to severe infections was performed, applying cost-minimization analysis (CMA) methods. In accordance with CMA methods, the assumption of equivalent efficacy was first demonstrated by literature retrieved and appraised. Adult patients (⩾18 years old) diagnosed with moderate to severe infections, including skin and skin structure infections (SSIs), sepsis, intra-abdominal infections (IAIs), respiratory tract infections, urinary tract infections (UTIs) and hospital-acquired infections (HAIs), who were prescribed IC 500 mg every six hours intravenously (2 g per day) or MEM 1 g every eight hours (3 g per day), were included in the study. Only direct costs related to the management of the infections were included, in accordance with a payer perspective. Results: Overall there was no difference in the mean total daily costs between IC (SAR 4784.46, 95% CI 4140.68, 5428.24) and MEM (4390.14, 95% CI 3785.82, 4994.45; p = 0.37). A significantly lower medicine acquisition cost per vial of IC was observed when compared to MEM, however there was a significantly higher cost attached to administration sets used in the IC group than the MEM group. Consultation, nursing and physician costs were not significantly different between the groups. No differences were observed in costs associated with adverse drug events (ADEs). Conclusion: This study has shown that while acquisition costs of IC at a dose of 500 mg q6 h may be lower than for MEM 1 g q8 h, mean total costs per day were not significantly different between IC and MEM, indicating that medicine costs are only a small element of the overall costs of managing moderate to severe infections. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of European Research in Telemedicine / La Recherche Européenne en Télémédecine is the property of Elsevier B.V. and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Abstract: Study Objective: To perform a cost-minimization analysis comparing robotic-assisted, laparoscopic, and abdominal sacrocolpopexy. Design: Cost-minimization analysis using a micro-costing approach (Canadian Task Force classification III). Measurements and Main Results: A decision model was developed to compare the costs (2008 US dollars) of robotic, laparoscopic, and abdominal sacrocolpopexy. Our model included operative time, risk of conversion, risk of transfusion, and length of stay (LOS) for each method. Respective baseline estimates for robotic, laparoscopic, and abdominal sacrocolpopexy procedures included operative time (328, 269, and 170 minutes), conversion (1.4%, 1.8%, and 0%), transfusion (1.4%, 1.8%, 3.8%), and LOS (1.0, 1.8, and 2.7 days). Two models were used, the Robot Existing model, that is, current hospital ownership of a robotic system, and the Robot Purchase model, that is, initial hospital purchase of a robotic system, with purchase and maintenance costs amortized and distributed across robotic procedures. Sensitivity analyses were performed to assess the effect of varying each parameter through its range. For the Robot Existing robot model, robotic sacrocolpopexy was the most expensive, $8508 per procedure compared with laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy at $7353 and abdominal sacrocolpopexy at $5792. Robotic and laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy became cost-equivalent only when robotic operative time was reduced to 149 minutes, robotic disposables costs were reduced to $2132, or laparoscopic disposable costs were increased to $3413. Laparoscopic and abdominal sacrocolpopexy became cost-equivalent only when laparoscopic disposable costs were reduced to $668, mean LOS for abdominal sacrocolpopexy was increased to 5.6 days, or surgeon reimbursement for abdominal sacrocolpopexy exceeded $2213. The addition of robotic purchase and maintenance costs resulted in an incremental increase of $581, $865, and $1724 per procedure when these costs were distributed over 60, 40, and 20 procedures per month, respectively. Conclusion: Robotic sacrocolpopexy was more expensive compared with the laparoscopic or abdominal routes under the baseline assumptions. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]