Suppr超能文献

机器人辅助子宫切除术与传统腹腔镜子宫切除术的长期成本最小化分析

Long term COST-minimization analysis of robot-assisted hysterectomy versus conventional laparoscopic hysterectomy.

作者信息

Martínez-Maestre María A, Melero-Cortés Lidia M, Coronado Pluvio J, González-Cejudo Carmen, García-Agua Nuria, García-Ruíz Antonio J, Jódar-Sánchez Francisco

机构信息

Gynecology Unit, Virgen del Rocio University Hospital, Seville, Spain.

Women's Health Institute, San Carlos Clinic Hospital, IdISSC, Madrid, Spain.

出版信息

Health Econ Rev. 2019 Jun 18;9(1):18. doi: 10.1186/s13561-019-0236-8.

Abstract

BACKGROUND

The aim of this study is to carry out the economic evaluation, in term of a cost-minimization analysis that considers healthcare costs and indirect costs, of robot-assisted hysterectomy (RAH) compared with conventional laparoscopic hysterectomy (CLH) in female adults scheduled for total laparoscopic hysterectomy for benign conditions.

METHODS

Cost-minimization analysis based on an analytic observational study of prospective cohorts with a five-year time horizon. Eligible participants were all female adults scheduled for total laparoscopic hysterectomy for benign conditions at tertiary hospital. The economic evaluation was conducted from a Spanish National Health Service and societal perspective, including healthcare costs and indirect costs. The costs are expressed in Euros from the year 2015.

RESULTS

One hundred sixty nine patients were analyzed, 68 in the RAH group and 101 in the CLH group. Average cost for the RAH group was €8982.42 compared to €8015.14 for the CLH group (incremental cost €967.27; p = 0.054). Healthcare cost is the most important component of total cost and represents 86.4% for the RAH group and 82.3% for the CLH group. The difference of €1169 (p = 0.01) in the average healthcare cost is mainly due to the cost of purchasing and maintaining the equipment (difference of €1206.39 in favor of RAH; p < 0.005). With regard to indirect costs, for patients in the RAH group the costs associated with loss of productivity were lower (difference of €203.42; p = 0.17), while the cost of trips to the hospital was higher (difference of €1.98; p = 0.66) in respect to CLH.

CONCLUSIONS

Our findings reveal similar effectiveness between RAH and CLH, although CLH is the more efficient option from the point of view of an economic analysis based on cost-minimization.

摘要

背景

本研究旨在对计划因良性疾病行全腹腔镜子宫切除术的成年女性,就机器人辅助子宫切除术(RAH)与传统腹腔镜子宫切除术(CLH)进行成本最小化分析,以考量医疗成本和间接成本,从而开展经济评估。

方法

基于前瞻性队列的分析性观察研究进行成本最小化分析,时间跨度为五年。符合条件的参与者为所有在三级医院因良性疾病计划行全腹腔镜子宫切除术的成年女性。经济评估从西班牙国家卫生服务和社会角度进行,包括医疗成本和间接成本。成本以2015年的欧元表示。

结果

共分析了169例患者,RAH组68例,CLH组101例。RAH组的平均成本为8982.42欧元,而CLH组为8015.14欧元(增量成本967.27欧元;p = 0.054)。医疗成本是总成本的最重要组成部分,RAH组占86.4%,CLH组占82.3%。平均医疗成本相差1169欧元(p = 0.01),主要是由于设备采购和维护成本(有利于RAH的差值为1206.39欧元;p < 0.005)。关于间接成本,RAH组患者与生产力损失相关的成本较低(差值为203.42欧元;p = 0.17),而相对于CLH组,到医院就诊的成本较高(差值为1.98欧元;p = 0.66)。

结论

我们的研究结果显示,RAH和CLH之间的有效性相似,尽管从基于成本最小化的经济分析角度来看,CLH是更有效的选择。

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/a32b/6734326/e210d9ddfe85/13561_2019_236_Fig1_HTML.jpg

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验