TY - JOUR
T1 - The economic impact of closed-incision negative-pressure therapy in high-risk abdominal incisions
T2 - A cost-utility analysis
AU - Chopra, Karan
AU - Gowda, Arvind U.
AU - Morrow, Chris
AU - Holton, Luther
AU - Singh, Devinder P.
PY - 2016
Y1 - 2016
N2 - Background: Complex abdominal wall reconstruction is beset by postoperative complications. A recent meta-analysis comparing the use of closed-incision negative-pressure therapy to standard dressings found a statistically significant reduction in surgical-site infection. The use of closed-incision negative-pressure therapy is gaining acceptance in this population; however, the economic impact of this innovative dressing remains unknown. In this study, a cost-utility analysis was performed assessing closed-incision negative-pressure therapy and standard dressings following closure of abdominal incisions in high-risk patients. Methods: Cost-utility methodology involved reviewing literature related to closed-incision negative-pressure therapy in abdominal wall surgery, obtaining utility estimates to calculate quality-adjusted life-year scores for successful surgery and surgery complicated by surgical-site infection, summing costs using Medicare Current Procedural Terminology codes, and creating a decision tree illuminating the most cost-effective dressing strategy. One-way sensitivity analysis was performed to assess the robustness of the results. Results: The aforementioned meta-analysis comparing closed-incision negative-pressure therapy to standard dressings included a subset of five studies assessing abdominal wall surgery in 829 patients (260 closed-incision negativepressure therapy and 569 standard dressings). Decision tree analysis revealed an estimated savings of $1546.52 and a gain of 0.0024 quality-adjusted lifeyear with closed-incision negative-pressure therapy compared with standard dressings; therefore, closed-incision negative-pressure therapy is a dominant treatment strategy. One-way sensitivity analysis revealed that closed-incision negative-pressure therapy is a cost-effective option when the surgical-site infection rate is greater than 16.39 percent. Conclusion: The use of closed-incision negative-pressure therapy is cost-saving following closure of abdominal incisions in high-risk patients.
AB - Background: Complex abdominal wall reconstruction is beset by postoperative complications. A recent meta-analysis comparing the use of closed-incision negative-pressure therapy to standard dressings found a statistically significant reduction in surgical-site infection. The use of closed-incision negative-pressure therapy is gaining acceptance in this population; however, the economic impact of this innovative dressing remains unknown. In this study, a cost-utility analysis was performed assessing closed-incision negative-pressure therapy and standard dressings following closure of abdominal incisions in high-risk patients. Methods: Cost-utility methodology involved reviewing literature related to closed-incision negative-pressure therapy in abdominal wall surgery, obtaining utility estimates to calculate quality-adjusted life-year scores for successful surgery and surgery complicated by surgical-site infection, summing costs using Medicare Current Procedural Terminology codes, and creating a decision tree illuminating the most cost-effective dressing strategy. One-way sensitivity analysis was performed to assess the robustness of the results. Results: The aforementioned meta-analysis comparing closed-incision negative-pressure therapy to standard dressings included a subset of five studies assessing abdominal wall surgery in 829 patients (260 closed-incision negativepressure therapy and 569 standard dressings). Decision tree analysis revealed an estimated savings of $1546.52 and a gain of 0.0024 quality-adjusted lifeyear with closed-incision negative-pressure therapy compared with standard dressings; therefore, closed-incision negative-pressure therapy is a dominant treatment strategy. One-way sensitivity analysis revealed that closed-incision negative-pressure therapy is a cost-effective option when the surgical-site infection rate is greater than 16.39 percent. Conclusion: The use of closed-incision negative-pressure therapy is cost-saving following closure of abdominal incisions in high-risk patients.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84964058312&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84964058312&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1097/PRS.0000000000002024
DO - 10.1097/PRS.0000000000002024
M3 - Article
C2 - 27018682
AN - SCOPUS:84964058312
SN - 0032-1052
VL - 137
SP - 1284
EP - 1289
JO - Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery
JF - Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery
IS - 4
ER -