Division of General Surgery, Department of Surgery, University of Kentucky College of Medicine, Lexington, KY, USA.
J Gastrointest Surg. 2013 Jan;17(1):159-66; discussion p.166-7. doi: 10.1007/s11605-012-1999-y. Epub 2012 Sep 11.
Complicated ventral hernias are often referred to tertiary care centers. Hospital costs associated with these repairs include direct costs (mesh materials, supplies, and nonsurgeon labor costs) and indirect costs (facility fees, equipment depreciation, and unallocated labor). Operative supplies represent a significant component of direct costs, especially in an era of proprietary synthetic meshes and biologic grafts. We aim to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of complex abdominal wall hernia repair at a tertiary care referral facility.
Cost data on all consecutive open ventral hernia repairs (CPT codes 49560, 49561, 49565, and 49566) performed between 1 July 2008 and 31 May 2011 were analyzed. Cases were analyzed based upon hospital status (inpatient vs. outpatient) and whether the hernia repair was a primary or secondary procedure. We examined median net revenue, direct costs, contribution margin, indirect costs, and net profit/loss. Among primary hernia repairs, cost data were further analyzed based upon mesh utilization (no mesh, synthetic, or biologic).
Four-hundred and fifteen patients underwent ventral hernia repair (353 inpatients and 62 outpatients); 173 inpatients underwent ventral hernia repair as the primary procedure; 180 inpatients underwent hernia repair as a secondary procedure. Median net revenue ($17,310 vs. 10,360, p < 0.001) and net losses (3,430 vs. 1,700, p < 0.025) were significantly greater for those who underwent hernia repair as a secondary procedure. Among inpatients undergoing ventral hernia repair as the primary procedure, 46 were repaired without mesh; 79 were repaired with synthetic mesh and 48 with biologic mesh. Median direct costs for cases performed without mesh were $5,432; median direct costs for those using synthetic and biologic mesh were $7,590 and 16,970, respectively (p < .01). Median net losses for repairs without mesh were $500. Median net profit of $60 was observed for synthetic mesh-based repairs. The median contribution margin for cases utilizing biologic mesh was -$4,560, and the median net financial loss was $8,370. Outpatient ventral hernia repairs, with and without synthetic mesh, resulted in median net losses of $1,560 and 230, respectively.
Ventral hernia repair is associated with overall financial losses. Inpatient synthetic mesh repairs are essentially budget neutral. Outpatient and inpatient repairs without mesh result in net financial losses. Inpatient biologic mesh repairs result in a negative contribution margin and striking net financial losses. Cost-effective strategies for managing ventral hernias in a tertiary care environment need to be developed in light of the financial implications of this patient population.
复杂的腹侧疝通常被转诊至三级护理中心。这些修复相关的医院费用包括直接费用(网片材料、用品和非外科医生劳动成本)和间接费用(设施费、设备折旧和未分配的劳动成本)。手术用品是直接费用的重要组成部分,尤其是在使用专利合成网片和生物移植物的时代。我们旨在评估在三级转诊医院进行复杂腹壁疝修复的成本效益。
分析了 2008 年 7 月 1 日至 2011 年 5 月 31 日期间连续进行的所有开放式腹侧疝修复术(CPT 编码 49560、49561、49565 和 49566)的成本数据。根据医院状态(住院患者与门诊患者)和疝修复术是原发性手术还是继发性手术对病例进行分析。我们检查了中位数净收入、直接成本、边际贡献、间接成本和净亏损/收益。在原发性疝修复术中,进一步根据网片使用情况(无网片、合成或生物)分析成本数据。
415 例患者接受了腹侧疝修复术(353 例住院患者和 62 例门诊患者);173 例住院患者作为原发性手术接受了腹侧疝修复术;180 例住院患者作为继发性手术接受了疝修复术。作为继发性手术的患者的中位数净收入($17310 与$10360,p<0.001)和净亏损(3430 与 1700,p<0.025)明显更高。在作为原发性手术接受腹侧疝修复的住院患者中,46 例未使用网片修复;79 例使用合成网片修复,48 例使用生物网片修复。未使用网片的病例的中位数直接成本为$5432;使用合成和生物网片的病例的中位数直接成本分别为$7590 和 16970(p<0.01)。未使用网片的病例的中位数净亏损为$500。使用合成网片修复的病例观察到中位数净盈利为$60。使用生物网片的病例的中位数边际贡献为-4560,中位数净财务损失为$8370。门诊腹侧疝修复术(无论是否使用合成网片),分别导致中位数净亏损$1560 和 230。
腹侧疝修复术与整体财务损失相关。住院患者使用合成网片修复术基本可达到预算平衡。无网片的门诊和住院患者修复术导致净财务损失。住院患者使用生物网片修复术导致边际贡献为负和显著的净财务损失。需要制定在三级护理环境中管理腹侧疝的具有成本效益的策略,以应对该患者群体的财务影响。