Nherera Leo M, Trueman Paul, Karlakki Sudheer L
Smith & Nephew Advanced Wound Management, Hull, United Kingdom.
Consultant Orthopaedic Surgeon, Robert Jones and Agnes Hunt Orthopaedic NHS Hospital Foundation Trust, Gobowen, Oswestry, SY10 7AG.
Wound Repair Regen. 2017 May;25(3):474-482. doi: 10.1111/wrr.12530. Epub 2017 May 3.
We sought to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of single-use negative pressure wound therapy in patients undergoing primary hip and knee replacements using effectiveness data from a recently completed non-blinded randomized controlled trial. A decision analytic model was developed from UK National Health Service perspective using data from a single-centre trial. 220 patients were randomized to treatment with either single-use negative pressure wound therapy or standard care i.e., film dressings of clinician choice and followed for 6 weeks. Outcomes included dressing changes, length of stay, surgical site complications, cost and quality adjusted life years. The randomized controlled trial reported a reduction in dressing changes (p = 0.002), SSC (p = 0.06) and LOS (p = 0.07) in favor of single-use negative pressure wound therapy compared with standard care. The model estimated 0.116 and 0.115 QALY gained, 0.98 and 0.92 complications avoided for single-use negative pressure wound therapy and standard care, respectively. The cost/patient was £5,602 ($7,954) and £6,713 ($9,559) for single-use negative pressure wound therapy and standard care respectively resulting in cost-saving of £1,132 ($1,607) in favor of single-use negative pressure wound therapy. Greater savings were observed in subgroups of higher risk patients with BMI ≥ 35 and ASA ≥ 3 i.e., £7,955 ($11,296) and £7,248 ($10,293), respectively. The findings were robust to a range of sensitivity analyses. In conclusion, single-use negative pressure wound therapy can be considered a cost saving intervention to reduce surgical site complications following primary hip and knee replacements compared with standard care. Providers should consider targeting therapy to those patients at elevated risk of surgical site complications to maximize efficiency.
我们试图利用一项最近完成的非盲法随机对照试验的有效性数据,评估一次性负压伤口治疗在接受初次髋关节和膝关节置换术患者中的成本效益。从英国国家医疗服务体系的角度,利用单中心试验的数据建立了一个决策分析模型。220名患者被随机分为接受一次性负压伤口治疗或标准护理(即临床医生选择的薄膜敷料),并随访6周。结果包括换药次数、住院时间、手术部位并发症、成本和质量调整生命年。随机对照试验报告称,与标准护理相比,一次性负压伤口治疗在换药次数(p = 0.002)、手术部位并发症(p = 0.06)和住院时间(p = 0.07)方面有所减少。该模型估计,一次性负压伤口治疗和标准护理分别获得0.116和0.115个质量调整生命年,避免0.98和0.92例并发症。一次性负压伤口治疗和标准护理的每位患者成本分别为5602英镑(7954美元)和6713英镑(9559美元),一次性负压伤口治疗节省成本1132英镑(1607美元)。在体重指数≥35且美国麻醉医师协会身体状况分级≥3的高风险患者亚组中观察到更大的节省,分别为7955英镑(11296美元)和7248英镑(10293美元)。一系列敏感性分析结果显示该研究结果具有稳健性。总之,与标准护理相比,一次性负压伤口治疗可被视为一种节省成本的干预措施,以减少初次髋关节和膝关节置换术后的手术部位并发症。医疗服务提供者应考虑将治疗目标对准那些手术部位并发症风险较高的患者,以实现效率最大化。