Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-v9fdk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-16T11:15:38.943Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Cost-Effectiveness of Open Versus Laparoscopic Repair for Primary Inguinal Hernia

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 March 2009

Carmen D. Dirksen ,
André J. H. A. Ament ,
Eddy M. M. Adang ,
Geerard L. Beets ,
Peter M. N. Y. H. Go ,
Cor G. M. I. Baeten  and
Gauke Kootstra
Carmen D. Dirksen
Affiliation:
University Hospital Maastricht
André J. H. A. Ament
Affiliation:
Maastricht University
Eddy M. M. Adang
Affiliation:
Maastricht University
Geerard L. Beets
Affiliation:
University Hospital Maastricht
Peter M. N. Y. H. Go
Affiliation:
St. Antonius Hospital
Cor G. M. I. Baeten
Affiliation:
University Hospital Maastricht
Gauke Kootstra
Affiliation:
University Hospital Maastricht
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

A cost-effectiveness (CE) analysis was performed of Bassini versus laparoscopic repair for primary inguinal hernia. Incremental costs per 1 -year recurrence-free patient were calculated for the societal and hospital perspective. From the hospital perspective, the incremental CE ratio of laparoscopic repair is 5.348 guilders. From the societal perspective, laparoscopic repair is both less costly and more effective than Bassini repair. Results were sensitive to assumptions about recurrence rates, laparoscopic operating time, and return to work. Laparoscopic repair should replace Bassini repair in order to benefit society. From the hospital perspective, the decision to accept laparoscopic repair depends on the willingness to pay.

Type
General Essays
Information
International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care , Volume 14 , Issue 3 , Summer 1998 , pp. 472 - 483
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1998

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

1.Amid, P. K., Shulman, A. G., & Lichtenstein, I. L.An analytic comparison of laparoscopic hernia repair with open ‘tension-free’ hernioplasty. International Surgery, 1995, 80, 9–17.Google ScholarPubMed
2.Arregui, M. E., Davis, C. D., & Yucel, O.Laparoscopic mesh repair of inguinal hernia using a preperitoneal approach: A preliminary report. Surgical Laparoscopy and Endoscopy, 1992, 2, 53–58.Google ScholarPubMed
3.Barkun, J. S., Wexler, M. J., Hinchey, E. J., et al. Laparoscopic versus open inguinal herniorrhaphy: Preliminary results of a randomized controlled trial. Surgery, 1995, 118, 703–10.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
4.Bassini, E.Ueber die Behandlung des Leistenbruches. Archiv für Klinische Chirurgie, 1980, 40, 429–76.Google Scholar
5.Beets, G. L., Oosterhuis, K. J., Go, P. M. N. Y. H., et al. Long-term follow up (12–15 years) of a randomized controlled trial comparing Bassini-Stetten, Shouldice and high ligation with narrowing of the internal ring for primary inguinal hernia repair. Journal of the American College of Surgeons, 1997, 185, 352–57.Google Scholar
6.Bessel, J. R., Baxter, P., Riddell, P., et al. A randomized controlled trial of laparoscopic extraperitoneal hernia repair as a day surgical procedure. Surgical Endoscopy, 1996, 10, 495–500.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
7.Champault, G., Benoit, J., Lauroy, J., & Rizk, P.Hernies de l'aine de l'adulte. Chirurgie laparoscopique vs operation de Shouldice: Étude randomisé contrôlée. Annales de Chirurgie, 1994, 48, 1003–08.Google Scholar
8.Corbitt, J. D. Jr., Transabdominal preperitoneal herniorrhaphy. Surgical Laparoscopy and Endoscopy, 1993, 3, 328–32.Google ScholarPubMed
9.Detsky, A. S., & Naglie, I.G.A clinician's guide to cost-effectiveness. Annals of Internal Medicine, 1990, 113, 147–54.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
10.Dion, Y. M., & Morin, J.Laparoscopic inguinal herniorrhaphy. Canadian Journal of Surgery, 1992, 35, 209–12.Google ScholarPubMed
11.Dirksen, C. D., Beets, G. L., Go, P. M. N. Y. H., et al. Open versus laparoscopic repair for primary inguinal hernia: A randomized controlled trial. European Journal of Surgery, in press.Google Scholar
12.Drummond, M., Torrance, G., & Mason, J.Cost-effectiveness league tables: More harm than good? Social Science and Medicine, 1993, 37, 33–40.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
13.Fraser, S. C. A.Quality-of-life measurement in surgical practice. British Journal of Surgery, 1993, 80, 163–69.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
14.Geis, W. P., Crafton, W. B., Novak, M. J., & Malago, M.Laparoscopic herniorrhaphy: Results and technical aspects in 450 consecutive procedures. Surgery, 1993, 114, 765–74.Google ScholarPubMed
15.Gold, M. R., Patrick, D. L., Torrance, G. W., et al. Identifying and valuing outcomes. In Gold, M. R., Siegel, J. E., Russell, L. B., & Weinstein, M. C. (eds.), Cost-effectiveness in health and medicine, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1996, 83–123.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
16.Hay, J. M., Boudet, M. J., Fingerhut, A., et al. Shouldice inguinal hernia repair in the male adult: The gold standard? A multicenter controlled trial in 1578 patients. Annals of Surgery, 1995, 222, 719–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
17.Johannesson, M., Jonsson, B., & Karlsson, G.Outcome measurement in economic evaluation. Health Economics, 1996, 5, 279–96.3.0.CO;2-J>CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
18.Johannesson, M., & Weinstein, M. C.On the decision rules of cost-effectiveness analysis. Journal of Health Economics, 1993, 12, 459–67.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
19.Kingsnorth, A., Gray, M., & Nott, D.Prospective randomised trial comparing the Shouldice technique and plication darn for inguinal hernia. British Journal of Surgery, 1992, 79, 1068–70.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
20.Koopmanschap, M. A., Rutten, F. F. H., van Ineveld, M., & van Roijen, L.The friction cost method for measuring indirect costs of disease. Journal of Health Economics, 1995, 14, 171–89.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
21.Kux, M., Fuchsjäger, N., & Schemper, M.Shouldice is superior to Bassini inguinal herniorrhaphy. American Journal of Surgery, 1994, 168, 15–18.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
22.Laupacis, A., Feeny, G., Detsky, A. S., & Tugwell, P. X.How attractive does a new technology have to be to warrant adoption and utilization? Tentative guidelines for using clinical and economic evaluations. Canadian Medical Association, 1992, 146, 473–81.Google ScholarPubMed
23.Lawrence, K., McWhinnie, D., Goodwin, A., et al. Randomised controlled trial of laparoscopic versus open repair of inguinal hernia: Early results. British Medical Journal, 1995, 311, 981–85.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
24.Liem, M. S. L., & van Vroonhoven, T. J. M. V.Laparoscopic inguinal hernia repair. British Journal of Surgery, 1996, 83, 1197–1204.Google ScholarPubMed
25.Maddern, G. J., Rudkin, G., Bessel, R., et al. A comparison of laparoscopic and open hernia repair as a day surgical procedure. Surgical Endoscopy, 1994, 8, 1404–08.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
26.Milkins, R. C., Landsdown, M. J. R., Wedgwood, K. R., et al. Laparoscopic hernia repair: A prospective study of 409 cases. Minimally Invasive Therapy, 1993, 2, 237–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
27.Moschinski, D., & Linke, R.Inguinal hernia operations in Germany. International Surgery, 1986, 71, 146–47.Google ScholarPubMed
28.Nyhus, L. M.Iliopubic tract repair of inguinal and femoral hernia. Surgical Clinics of North America, 1993, 73, 487–99.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
29.Paul, A., Troidl, H., Williams, J. I., et al. Randomized trial of modified Bassini versus Shouldice inguinal hernia repair. British Journal of Surgery, 1994, 81, 1531–34.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
30.Payne, J. H., Grininger, L. M., Izawa, M. T., et al. Laparoscopic or open inguinal herniorrhaphy? A randomized prospective trial. Archives of Surgery, 1994, 129, 973–81.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
31.Phelps, C. E., & Mushlin, A. I.On the (near) equivalence of cost-effectiveness and cost benefit analysis. International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care, 1991, 7, 12–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
32.Schrenk, P., Woisetschläger, R., Rieger, R., & Wayand, W.Prospective randomized trial comparing postoperative pain and return to physical activity after transabdominal preperitoneal, total preperitoneal or Shouldice technique for inguinal hernia repair. British Journal of Surgery, 1996, 83, 1563–66.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
33.SIG Health Care Information. Trends in surgery 1984–1993 (in Dutch). Apeldoorn, 1995.Google Scholar
34.Simons, M. P., Hoitsma, H. F. W., & Mullan, F. J.Primary inguinal hernia repair in The Netherlands. European Journal of Surgery, 1995, 161, 345–48.Google ScholarPubMed
35. Statistics Netherlands. Data on labor and wages of employees, 1994.Google Scholar
36.Stoker, D. L., Spiegelhalter, D. J., Singh, R., & Wellwood, J. M.Laparoscopic versus open inguinal hernia repair: A randomized prospective trial. Lancet, 1994, 343, 1243–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
37.Tschudi, J., Wagner, M., Klaiber, C., et al. Controlled multicenter trial of laparoscopic transabdominal preperitoneal hernioplasty vs Shouldice herniorrhaphy: Early results. Surgical Endoscopy, 1996, 10, 845–47.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
38.Voeller, G. R., Mangiante, E. C., & Britt, L. G.Preliminary evaluation of laparoscopic herniorrhaphy. Surgical Laparoscopy and Endoscopy, 1993, 3, 100–05.Google ScholarPubMed
39.Vogt, D. M., Curet, M. J., Pitcher, D. E., et al. Preliminary results of a prospective randomized trial of laparoscopic onlay versus conventional inguinal herniorrhaphy. American Journal of Surgery, 1995, 169, 84–90CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
40.Winchester, D. J., Dawes, L. G., Modelski, D. D., et al. Laparoscopic inguinal hernia repair: A preliminary experience. Archives of Surgery, 1993, 128, 781–84.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed