• 文献检索
  • 文档翻译
  • 深度研究
  • 学术资讯
  • Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件
  • 邀请有礼
  • 套餐&价格
  • 历史记录
应用&插件
Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件浏览器插件Mac 客户端Windows 客户端微信小程序
定价
高级版会员购买积分包购买API积分包
服务
文献检索文档翻译深度研究API 文档MCP 服务
关于我们
关于 Suppr公司介绍联系我们用户协议隐私条款
关注我们

Suppr 超能文献

核心技术专利:CN118964589B侵权必究
粤ICP备2023148730 号-1Suppr @ 2026

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验

全腹膜外修补术与李金斯坦手术治疗腹股沟疝的卫生经济学分析:来自一项随机临床试验的数据。

Health economic analysis of total extraperitoneal repair versus Lichtenstein surgery for inguinal hernia: data from a randomized clinical trial.

机构信息

Department of Trauma and Reparative Medicine, CLINTEC, Karolinska Institute, Karolinska University Hospital, Sweden.

Department of Clinical Science and Education Södersjukhuset, Karolinska Institute, Sweden.

出版信息

BJS Open. 2021 May 7;5(3). doi: 10.1093/bjsopen/zrab026.

DOI:10.1093/bjsopen/zrab026
PMID:33963366
原文链接:https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8105619/
Abstract

BACKGROUND

The aim was to compare cost-effectiveness of Lichtenstein under local anaesthesia (LLA) with total extraperitoneal repair (TEP) under general anaesthesia for primary inguinal hernia in men. An endoscopic approach to inguinal hernia repair is often considered costlier. The cost of endoscopic hernia repair, however, has not been compared to open inguinal hernia repair in a cost-effective setting.

METHODS

Data from an RCT comparing TEP and Lichtenstein in a cost-effective setting, with health economy as a secondary endpoint, were used. Data on costs were collected prospectively. Data on sick leave were obtained from the Swedish Social Insurance Agency in order to compare lengths of sick leave.

RESULTS

In total, 384 patients were included and 374 (97.4 per cent) patients were available for analysis, 189 in the LLA group and 185 in the TEP group. The median operating time for LLA was 70 (i.q.r. 60-80) min compared with 60 (i.q.r. 50-75) min in the TEP group (P < 0.001). The median time in operating theatre was 114 (i.q.r. 95--125) min for LLA and 125 (i.q.r. 110-145) min for TEP (P < 0.001). The median cost including all materials was 2433 (i.q.r. 2084-2734) Euros for LLA and 2395 (i.q.r. 2093-2784) Euro for TEP (P = 0.650). Mean sick leave was 4.2 days in the LLA group and 6.2 days in the TEP group (P = 0.830).

CONCLUSION

The overall cost to the hospital or length of sick leave did not differ between LLA and TEP.

摘要

背景

本研究旨在比较局部麻醉下的 Lichtenstein 修补术(LLA)与全身麻醉下的完全腹膜外修补术(TEP)治疗男性原发性腹股沟疝的成本效果。虽然经内镜腹股沟疝修补术通常被认为费用更高,但在成本效益方面,尚未将其与开放式腹股沟疝修补术进行比较。

方法

本研究使用了一项 RCT 的数据,该 RCT 在成本效益方面比较了 TEP 和 Lichtenstein,将健康经济学作为次要终点。前瞻性收集成本数据。通过向瑞典社会保险局(Swedish Social Insurance Agency)获取病假数据,以比较病假时长。

结果

共纳入 384 例患者,其中 374 例(97.4%)患者可用于分析,LLA 组 189 例,TEP 组 185 例。LLA 组的中位手术时间为 70(IQR 60-80)min,TEP 组为 60(IQR 50-75)min(P<0.001)。LLA 组的中位手术时间为 114(IQR 95-125)min,TEP 组为 125(IQR 110-145)min(P<0.001)。包括所有材料在内的中位总成本为 LLA 组 2433(IQR 2084-2734)欧元,TEP 组 2395(IQR 2093-2784)欧元(P=0.650)。LLA 组的平均病假天数为 4.2 天,TEP 组为 6.2 天(P=0.830)。

结论

LLA 和 TEP 之间的医院总成本或病假长度没有差异。

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/f35d/8105619/90ae14d1c7b8/zrab026f1.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/f35d/8105619/90ae14d1c7b8/zrab026f1.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/f35d/8105619/90ae14d1c7b8/zrab026f1.jpg

相似文献

1
Health economic analysis of total extraperitoneal repair versus Lichtenstein surgery for inguinal hernia: data from a randomized clinical trial.全腹膜外修补术与李金斯坦手术治疗腹股沟疝的卫生经济学分析:来自一项随机临床试验的数据。
BJS Open. 2021 May 7;5(3). doi: 10.1093/bjsopen/zrab026.
2
Randomized clinical trial comparing total extraperitoneal with Lichtenstein inguinal hernia repair (TEPLICH trial).随机临床试验比较完全腹膜外与经耻骨肌孔修补术(TEPLICH 试验)治疗腹股沟疝。
Br J Surg. 2019 Jun;106(7):845-855. doi: 10.1002/bjs.11230.
3
TEP under general anesthesia is superior to Lichtenstein under local anesthesia in terms of pain 6 weeks after surgery: results from a randomized clinical trial.全麻下单侧经肛门内镜微创手术(TEP)在术后 6 周时疼痛程度优于局部麻醉下的经腹会阴联合切除术(Lichtenstein):一项随机临床试验的结果。
Surg Endosc. 2013 Oct;27(10):3632-8. doi: 10.1007/s00464-013-2936-1. Epub 2013 Apr 10.
4
Totally extraperitoneal repair under general anesthesia versus Lichtenstein repair under local anesthesia for unilateral inguinal hernia: a prospective randomized controlled trial.全身麻醉下完全腹膜外修补术与局部麻醉下李金斯坦修补术治疗单侧腹股沟疝的前瞻性随机对照试验
Surg Endosc. 2014 Mar;28(3):996-1002. doi: 10.1007/s00464-013-3269-9. Epub 2013 Nov 7.
5
Less Pain 1 Year After Total Extra-peritoneal Repair Compared With Lichtenstein Using Local Anesthesia: Data From a Randomized Controlled Clinical Trial.与使用局部麻醉的Lichtenstein手术相比,完全腹膜外修补术后1年疼痛减轻:一项随机对照临床试验的数据。
Ann Surg. 2016 Feb;263(2):240-3. doi: 10.1097/SLA.0000000000001289.
6
Randomized clinical trial of total extraperitoneal inguinal hernioplasty vs Lichtenstein repair: a long-term follow-up study.完全腹膜外腹股沟疝修补术与Lichtenstein修补术的随机临床试验:一项长期随访研究
Arch Surg. 2012 Mar;147(3):256-60. doi: 10.1001/archsurg.2011.2023.
7
Safety and efficacy in inguinal hernia repair: a retrospective study comparing TREPP, TEP and Lichtenstein (SETTLE).腹股沟疝修补术的安全性和有效性:一项比较 TREPP、TEP 和 Lichtenstein(SETTLE)的回顾性研究。
Hernia. 2021 Oct;25(5):1309-1315. doi: 10.1007/s10029-020-02361-w. Epub 2021 Jan 5.
8
Randomized controlled study of laparoscopic total extraperitoneal versus open Lichtenstein inguinal hernia repair.腹腔镜完全腹膜外修补术与开放式李金斯坦腹股沟疝修补术的随机对照研究
Surg Endosc. 2003 Jun;17(6):850-6. doi: 10.1007/s00464-002-8575-6. Epub 2003 Mar 28.
9
Short-term results of a randomized clinical trial comparing Lichtenstein open repair with totally extraperitoneal laparoscopic inguinal hernia repair.一项比较Lichtenstein开放式修补术与完全腹膜外腹腔镜腹股沟疝修补术的随机临床试验的短期结果
Br J Surg. 2006 Sep;93(9):1060-8. doi: 10.1002/bjs.5405.
10
[Efficacy comparison of the laparoscopic total extraperitoneal prosthetic and the Lichtenstein herniorrhaphy for inguinal hernia].腹腔镜完全腹膜外修补术与Lichtenstein疝修补术治疗腹股沟疝的疗效比较
Zhonghua Wei Chang Wai Ke Za Zhi. 2017 Aug 25;20(8):928-931.

本文引用的文献

1
International guidelines for groin hernia management.腹股沟疝治疗的国际指南。
Hernia. 2018 Feb;22(1):1-165. doi: 10.1007/s10029-017-1668-x. Epub 2018 Jan 12.
2
CONSORT extension for reporting N-of-1 trials (CENT) 2015 Statement.用于报告单病例试验(CENT)的CONSORT扩展版2015声明。
J Clin Epidemiol. 2016 Aug;76:9-17. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2015.05.004. Epub 2015 Aug 10.
3
Less Pain 1 Year After Total Extra-peritoneal Repair Compared With Lichtenstein Using Local Anesthesia: Data From a Randomized Controlled Clinical Trial.
与使用局部麻醉的Lichtenstein手术相比,完全腹膜外修补术后1年疼痛减轻:一项随机对照临床试验的数据。
Ann Surg. 2016 Feb;263(2):240-3. doi: 10.1097/SLA.0000000000001289.
4
Randomized clinical trial of total extraperitoneal inguinal hernioplasty vs Lichtenstein repair: a long-term follow-up study.完全腹膜外腹股沟疝修补术与Lichtenstein修补术的随机临床试验:一项长期随访研究
Arch Surg. 2012 Mar;147(3):256-60. doi: 10.1001/archsurg.2011.2023.
5
Total extraperitoneal inguinal hernia repair compared with Lichtenstein (the LEVEL-Trial): a randomized controlled trial.完全腹膜外腹股沟疝修补术与李金斯坦修补术(LEVEL 试验)的比较:一项随机对照试验。
Ann Surg. 2010 May;251(5):819-24. doi: 10.1097/SLA.0b013e3181d96c32.
6
Long-term cost-minimization analysis comparing laparoscopic with open (Lichtenstein) inguinal hernia repair.腹腔镜与开放(Lichtenstein)腹股沟疝修补术的长期成本最小化分析。
Br J Surg. 2010 May;97(5):765-71. doi: 10.1002/bjs.6945.
7
The Swedish personal identity number: possibilities and pitfalls in healthcare and medical research.瑞典个人身份证号码:在医疗保健和医学研究中的可能性和陷阱。
Eur J Epidemiol. 2009;24(11):659-67. doi: 10.1007/s10654-009-9350-y. Epub 2009 Jun 6.
8
Cost-effectiveness analysis of local, regional and general anaesthesia for inguinal hernia repair using data from a randomized clinical trial.利用一项随机临床试验的数据对腹股沟疝修补术采用局部、区域和全身麻醉进行成本效益分析。
Br J Surg. 2007 Apr;94(4):500-5. doi: 10.1002/bjs.5543.
9
Laparoscopic surgery for inguinal hernia repair: systematic review of effectiveness and economic evaluation.腹腔镜腹股沟疝修补术:有效性的系统评价与经济评估
Health Technol Assess. 2005 Apr;9(14):1-203, iii-iv. doi: 10.3310/hta9140.
10
Transabdominal pre-peritoneal (TAPP) vs totally extraperitoneal (TEP) laparoscopic techniques for inguinal hernia repair.经腹腹膜前(TAPP)与完全腹膜外(TEP)腹腔镜技术用于腹股沟疝修补术的比较
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2005 Jan 25;2005(1):CD004703. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD004703.pub2.