Clinical and economic efficiency of the loop ileostomy closure by various methods
Abstract
in the context of optimizing the financial mechanisms of the national healthcare system, introducing the single-channel financial principle and further developing the insurance-based medicine in Russia, a competent financial accounting becomes an important element of the entire healthcare system.
Aim – compare the economic effectiveness of various methods of closing a loop ileostomy.
Materials and methods. The study included 327 patients randomized into 3 groups. in group 1, the closure of an ileostomy was performed manually with the formation of an end-to-end ileo-ileoastomosis; in group 2, the anastomosis was formed in the ”side by side” manner; and in group 3, a semi-automated surgical technique was used for the anastomosis formation.
Results. The average cost of the treatments (per patient) in groups 1 and 2 was 131,704.90 rubles. and 145,473.70 rubles, respectively, while in group 3, the cost was higher – 167,443,60 rubles (p <0,001). This cost increase in Group 3 was mainly due to the cost of a disposable stapler and cassettes.
Conclusion. The formation of a manual ileoileoanastomosis of the end-to-end type was less budget-consuming in comparison with the other methods. The semi-automated procedure based on disposable parts was the most expensive method of closing a loop ileostomy.
About the Authors
A. V. Veselov
State Scientific Centre of Coloproctology named after A. N. Ryzhih.
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
Veselov Aleksej Viktorovich – MD, PhD, Head of Management and development of Coloproctology Care Department.
2 Salyama Adilya Str., Moscow 123423.
S. I. Achkasov
State Scientific Centre of Coloproctology named after A. N. Ryzhih.
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
Achkasov Sergej Ivanovich – MD, Professor & Head, Department of Oncology and Colon Surgery.
2 Salyama Adilya Str., Moscow 123423.
O. I. Sushkov
State Scientific Centre of Coloproctology named after A. N. Ryzhih.
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
Sushkov Oleg Ivanovich – MD, PhD, Senior Researcher, Department of Oncology and Colon Surgery.
2 Salyama Adilya Str., Moscow 123423.
A. I. Moskalev
State Scientific Centre of Coloproctology named after A. N. Ryzhih.
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
Moskalev Aleksej Igorevich – MD, PhD, Head of the Department of Continuing Professional Education.
2 Salyama Adilya Str., Moscow 123423.
I. S. Lantsov
State Scientific Centre of Coloproctology named after A. N. Ryzhih.
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
Lantsov Ivan Sergeevich – Post-graduate Student, Department of Oncology and Colon Surger.
2 Salyama Adilya Str., Moscow 123423.
References
1. Ulrich A. B. et al. Diverting stoma after low anterior resection: more arguments in favor. Dis. Colon Rectum. 2009; 52 (3): 412-418.
2. Amin S. N. Armitage N. C., Scholefield J. H. M.A.M. Defunctioning loop ileostomy and stapled side-to-side closure has low morbidity. R. Coll. Surg. engl. 2001; 83: 246-249.
3. Hirotoshi Hasegawa Simon Radley, Dion G. Morton, Michael R. B. Keighley Stapled Versus Sutured Closure of LoopIleostomyA Randomized Controlled Trial. Ann Surg. 2000; 231 (2): 202-204.
4. Bain I. M., Patel R., Keighley M. R. Comparison of sutured and stapled closure of loop ileostomy after restorative proctocolectomy. Annals of The Royal College of Surgeons of england. 1996; 78 (6): 555-556.
5. Feinberg S. M., McLeod R.S., Cohen Z. Complications of loop ileostomy. Am. J. Surg. United States. 1987; 153 (1): 102-107.
6. Wong K. S. et al. Loop ileostomy closure after restorative proctocolectomy: Outcome in 1,504 patients. Dis. Colon Rectum. 2005; 48 (2): 243-250.
7. Kann B. Early Stomal Complications. Clin. Colon Rectal Surg. 2008; 21( ): 023-030.
8. Harris D. et al. Complications and mortality following stoma formation. Ann. R. Coll. Surg. engl. 2005; 87 (6): 427-431.
9. Robertson I. et al. Prospective analysis of stoma-related complications. Color. Dis. 2005; 7 (3): 279-285.
10. NG K. Intra-abdominal “reservoir” in patients with permanent ileostomy: Preliminary observations on a procedure resulting in fecal “continence” in five ileostomy patients. Arch. Surg. 1969; 99 (2): 223231.
11. Loffler T. et al. HAnd Suture Versus STApling for Closure of Loop Ileostomy (HASTA Trial): results of a multicenter randomized trial (DRKS00000040). Ann Surg. 2012; 256 (5): 826-828.
12. Luglio G. et al. Ileostomy reversal with handsewn techniques. Short-term outcomes in a teaching hospital. int. J. Colorectal Dis. 2017; 32 (1): 113-118.
13. Sushkov O. I. Results of laparoscopic operations for cancer of the right colon: 04200602537 [Rezul’taty laparoskopicheskih operacij po povodu raka pravoj poloviny obodochnoj kishki: 04200602537 (in Russian). Moscow. 2006; 158 s.
14. Vorob’ev G.I., Shelygin Yu.A., Frolov S. F., Sushkov O. I. ehndos kopicheskaya hirurgiya (in Russian). 2007; 13 (1): 26.
15. Horisberger K., Beldi G., Candinas D. Loop ileostomy closure: comparison of cost effectiveness between suture and stapler. World J Surg. 2010; 34 (12): 2867-2871.
16. Tracy L. Hull Ingrid Kobe, Victor W. Fazio Comparison of Handsewn with Stapled Loop Ileostomy Closures. Dis. Colon Rectum. 1995; 39 (10):1086-9.
17. Shelygin Y. A., Chernyshov S. V., Rybakov E. G. Stapled ileostomy closure results in reduction of postoperative morbidity. Tech Coloproctol. 2010; 14 (1): 19-23.
18. Huser N. et al. Systematic review and meta-analysis of the role of defunctioning stoma in low rectal cancer surgery. Ann Surg. 2008; 248 (1): 52-60.
19. Man V. C. et al. Morbidities after closure of ileostomy: analysis of risk factors. int J Color. Dis. 2016; 31 (1): 51-57.
20. Gaetano Luglio, Stefan D. Holubar, Robert R. Cima, Heidi Nelson. Loop Ileostomy Reversal After Colonand Rectal Surgery. Arch Surg. 2011; 146 (10): 1191-6.
21. Leung T. T. et al. Comparison of stapled versus handsewn loop ileostomy closure: a meta-analysis. J Gastrointest Surg. 2008; 12 (5): 939-944.
22. Poskus E. et al. Complications after Loop Ileostomy Closure: A Retrospective Analysis of 132 Patients. Viszeralmedizin. 2014; 30 (4): 276-280.
23. Mennigen R. et al. Morbidity of loop ileostomy closure after restorative proctocolectomy for ulcerative colitis and familial adenomatous polyposis: a systematic review. J Gastrointest Surg. 2014; 18 (12): 2192-2200.
24. Markides G. A. et al. Meta-analysis of handsewn versus stapled reversal of loop ileostomy. AnZ J Surg. 2015; 85 (4): 217-224.
25. Mansfield S. D. et al. Complications of loop ileostomy closure: a retrospective cohort analysis of 123 patients. World J Surg. 2008; 32 (9): 2101-2106.
26. Williams L. A. et al. The outcome of loop ileostomy closure: a prospective study. Color. Dis. 2008; 10 (5): 460-464.
27. Shelygin Yu.A. et al. koloproktologiya (in Russian). 2016; 2 (56): 25-31.
28. Shelygin Yu.A. et al. koloproktologiya (in Russian). 2017; 1 (59): 76-81.
Review
For citation:
Veselov A.V., Achkasov S.I., Sushkov O.I., Moskalev A.I., Lantsov I.S. Clinical and economic efficiency of the loop ileostomy closure by various methods. FARMAKOEKONOMIKA. Modern Pharmacoeconomics and Pharmacoepidemiology. 2018;11(2):38-43. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.17749/2070-4909.2018.11.2.038-043
Views: 538
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
Email this article 