切换至 "中华医学电子期刊资源库"

中华疝和腹壁外科杂志(电子版) ›› 2023, Vol. 17 ›› Issue (01) : 91 -95. doi: 10.3877/cma.j.issn.1674-392X.2023.01.022

临床论著

腹腔镜与开放腹膜前疝修补手术治疗成人腹股沟疝的成本效益分析
万顷1, 邓先锐1, 何婷1, 郑磊1, 陈虹豆2, 王永3,()   
  1. 1. 620010 四川省,眉山市人民医院胃肠疝外科
    2. 620010 四川省,眉山市人民医院肿瘤科
    3. 610041 成都,四川大学华西医院胃肠外科
  • 收稿日期:2022-03-05 出版日期:2023-02-18
  • 通信作者: 王永
  • 基金资助:
    吴阶平医学基金会临床科研专项资助基金(320.6750.16207)

Cost-effectiveness analysis of laparoscopic and open preperitoneal surgery for adult inguinal hernia

Qing Wan1, Xianrui Deng1, Ting He1, Lei Zheng1, Hongdou Chen2, Yong Wang3,()   

  1. 1. Department of Gastrointestinal Hernia Surgery, Meishan People's Hospital, Meishan 620010, Sichuan, China
    2. Department of Oncology, Meishan People's Hospital, Meishan 620010, Sichuan, China
    3. Department of Gastrointestinal Surgery, Sichuan University West China Hospital, Chengdu 610041, China
  • Received:2022-03-05 Published:2023-02-18
  • Corresponding author: Yong Wang
引用本文:

万顷, 邓先锐, 何婷, 郑磊, 陈虹豆, 王永. 腹腔镜与开放腹膜前疝修补手术治疗成人腹股沟疝的成本效益分析[J/OL]. 中华疝和腹壁外科杂志(电子版), 2023, 17(01): 91-95.

Qing Wan, Xianrui Deng, Ting He, Lei Zheng, Hongdou Chen, Yong Wang. Cost-effectiveness analysis of laparoscopic and open preperitoneal surgery for adult inguinal hernia[J/OL]. Chinese Journal of Hernia and Abdominal Wall Surgery(Electronic Edition), 2023, 17(01): 91-95.

目的

从成本-效益角度对比分析腹腔镜与开放腹膜前疝修补手术在成人腹股沟疝中的应用情况。

方法

纳入2019年1-12月在眉山市人民医院诊治的单侧腹股沟疝患者132例,患者自主选择手术方式,开放手术组52例,腹腔镜手术组80例。成本费用计算包括住院费用、手术费用、其他费用;使用《欧洲五维健康量表(EQ-5D)中文版》在术后1 d、7 d、15 d分别对患者进行获益评价,并据此计算质量调整生命年(QALYs),进而计算和分析成本效益比(C/E)及增量成本效益比(ICER)。

结果

开放手术组的平均总费用为7742.72元,腹腔镜手术组的平均总费用为12 866.56元。开放手术组和腹腔镜组的QALYs在第1天分别为0.501±0.178/0.692±0.106,第7天为0.673±0.123/0.814±0.042,差异均有统计学意义;第15天时QALYs分别为0.809±0.046/ 0.821±0.040,差异无统计学意义。腹腔镜组在第1天的ICER为3138.76(元/QALYs);第7天时的ICER为4301.8(元/QALYs);敏感性分析得出腹腔镜组在第1天和第7天C/E变化影响最大的费用是材料费;临界值分析显示如果材料费下降到5082.32元或3752.68元时腹腔镜组和开放组分别在第1天和第7天的C/E相当。

结论

腹腔镜腹股沟疝手术后第1天和第7天时患者生活质量要高于开放手术患者,在第15天时二者没有差异。腹腔镜手术治疗腹股沟疝虽然费用较高,但是对于提高生活质量来说是相对值得的。

Objective

To compare the application of laparoscopic and open preperitoneal hernia repair in adult inguinal hernia from the perspective of cost-effectiveness.

Methods

A total of 132 patients with unilateral inguinal hernia diagnosed and treated in Meishan People's Hospital from January to December 2019 were included. The patients independently selected the surgical methods, including 52 patients in the open operation group and 80 patients in the laparoscopic operation group. The cost calculation included hospitalization expenses, operation expenses and other expenses. The benefit evaluation of patients was carried out using the EuroQuol-5D (EQ-5D) on the 1st day, the 7th day and the 15th day after operation, and the quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) were calculated accordingly. And then calculate the cost-effectiveness ratio (C/E) and the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER).

Results

The average total cost of the open operation group was ¥7742.72, and the average total cost of the laparoscopic group was ¥12866.56. The QALYs of the open preperitoneal operation group and laparoscopic group were 0.501±0.178/0.692±0.106 on the 1st day, 0.673± 0.123/0.814±0.042 on the 7th day, respectively. The differences were statistically significant. But the QALYs of the patients on the 15th day was 0.809±0.046/0.821±0.040, respectively. The differences were not statistically significant; the ICER of the laparoscopic operation group on the 1st day was ¥3138.76/QALYs; the ICER of the 7th day was ¥4301.8/QALYs; the sensitivity analysis showed that the cost of the C/E change in the laparoscopic group on both the 1st day and the 7th day was material expenses. The critical value analysis showed that if the material cost dropped to ¥5082.32 or ¥3752.68, the C/E of the laparoscopic group and the open group were the same on the 1st day and the 7th day, respectively.

Conclusion

On the 1st and 7th days after laparoscopic inguinal hernia surgery, the quality of life of patients was higher than that of patients undergoing open surgery, and there was no difference between them on the 15th day. Although laparoscopic surgery for inguinal hernia is expensive, the extra cost is "worth" it to improve the quality of life.

表1 2组患者经济成本比较
表2 2组术后不同时间质量调整生命年
表3 2组患者不同时间成本效益比较
图1 术后第1天腹腔镜组敏感性分析
图2 术后第7天腹腔镜组敏感性分析
图3 术后第1天临界值分析
图4 术后第7天临界值分析
[1]
Haladu N, Alabi A, Brazzelli M, et al. Open versus laparoscopic repair of inguinal hernia: an overview of systematic reviews of randomised controlled trials[J]. Surg Endosc, 2022, 36(7): 4685-4700.
[2]
Hope W W, Bools L, Menon A, et al. Comparing laparoscopic and open inguinal hernia repair in octogenarians[J]. Hernia, 2013, 17(6):719-722.
[3]
刘立, 尹作文, 喻军, 等. 腹腔镜下腹股沟疝修补术与开放无张力疝修补术临床疗效[J/OL]. 中华疝和腹壁外科杂志(电子版), 2021, 15(3): 236-239.
[4]
于永洋, 张福星, 刘昭晖, 等. Mesh-Plug与TAPP治疗腹股沟疝的效果及对术后复发率的影响[J]. 中外医学研究, 2022, 20(30): 127-130.
[5]
中华医学会外科学分会疝与腹壁外科学组, 中国医师协会外科医师分会疝和腹壁外科医师委员会. 成人腹股沟疝诊断和治疗指南(2018年版)[J/OL]. 中华疝和腹壁外科杂志(电子版), 2018, 12(4): 244-246.
[6]
Mcintosh E. Cost–utility analysis of open versus laparoscopic groin hernia repair: results from a multicentre randomized clinical trial[J]. Br J Surg, 2001, 88(5): 653-661.
[7]
张鹏. 腹腔镜手术与疝环填充式修补术在老年腹股沟疝中的应用效果比照观察[J]. 航空航天医学杂志, 2019, 30(8): 950-951.
[8]
Wang H, Kindig DA, Mullahy J. Varation in Chinese population health related quality of life: Results from a EuroQol study in Beijing, China [J]. Qual Life Res, 2005, 14(1): 119-132.
[9]
余倩, 范小玲, 张曦, 等. 成人乙型肝炎患者不同转归状态的生命质量效用权重评估[J]. 中国卫生经济, 2016, 35(6): 68-70.
[10]
Edejer Tan Torres, Teresa. Making choise in health: WHO guide to cost-effectiveness analysis[J]. Revista Española De Salud Pública, 2003, 78(3): 217-219.
[11]
国家统计局. 中华人民共和国2019年国民经济和社会发展统计公报[N]. 人民日报, 2020-02-29(5).
[12]
中国医师协会外科医师分会疝和腹壁外科学组, 中华医学会外科学分会疝与腹壁外科学组, 全国卫生产业企业管理协会疝和腹壁外科产业及临床研究分会, 等. 腹股沟疝日间手术规范化流程专家共识(2020版)[J]. 中华消化外科杂志, 2020, 19 (7): 714-719.
[13]
吴丹, 李小云, 孙红飞. 以护理结局为导向的护理干预措施用于腹股沟斜疝无张力修补术患者的观察[J/OL]. 中华疝和腹壁外科杂志(电子版), 2021, 15(5): 536-539.
[14]
何宏娟, 沈薇, 张蔚蔚. 快速康复外科护理对疝修补术治疗成人腹股沟疝患者术后恢复的影响[J/OL]. 中华疝和腹壁外科杂志(电子版), 2021, 15(6): 679-682.
[15]
张文静, 李春艳, 商玉环. 腹股沟疝日间手术患者护理模式的探讨与分析[J/OL]. 中华疝和腹壁外科杂志(电子版), 2020, 14(4): 450-453.
[16]
于晓彦, 蔡锦洪, 何春辉, 等. "三医"联动政策背景下国家药品价格谈判的现状[J]. 广西医学, 2019, 41(19): 2538-2541.
[17]
郑素芳. 舒适护理在腹腔镜疝修补术治疗腹股沟疝患者中的应用研究[J]. 当代护士(上旬刊), 2020, 27(1): 68-69.
[18]
吉达玲. 无张力疝修补术应用于老年人腹股沟疝的护理方式和护理效果研究[J/OL]. 实用临床护理学电子杂志, 2019, 4(33): 32.
[1] 李国新, 陈新华. 全腹腔镜下全胃切除术食管空肠吻合的临床研究进展[J/OL]. 中华普外科手术学杂志(电子版), 2025, 19(01): 1-4.
[2] 李子禹, 卢信星, 李双喜, 陕飞. 食管胃结合部腺癌腹腔镜手术重建方式的选择[J/OL]. 中华普外科手术学杂志(电子版), 2025, 19(01): 5-8.
[3] 李乐平, 张荣华, 商亮. 腹腔镜食管胃结合部腺癌根治淋巴结清扫策略[J/OL]. 中华普外科手术学杂志(电子版), 2025, 19(01): 9-12.
[4] 陈方鹏, 杨大伟, 金从稳. 腹腔镜近端胃癌切除术联合改良食管胃吻合术重建His角对术后反流性食管炎的效果研究[J/OL]. 中华普外科手术学杂志(电子版), 2025, 19(01): 15-18.
[5] 许杰, 李亚俊, 韩军伟. 两种入路下腹腔镜根治性全胃切除术治疗超重胃癌的效果比较[J/OL]. 中华普外科手术学杂志(电子版), 2025, 19(01): 19-22.
[6] 李刘庆, 陈小翔, 吕成余. 全腹腔镜与腹腔镜辅助远端胃癌根治术治疗进展期胃癌的近中期随访比较[J/OL]. 中华普外科手术学杂志(电子版), 2025, 19(01): 23-26.
[7] 任佳, 马胜辉, 王馨, 石秀霞, 蔡淑云. 腹腔镜全胃切除、间置空肠代胃术的临床观察[J/OL]. 中华普外科手术学杂志(电子版), 2025, 19(01): 31-34.
[8] 赵丽霞, 王春霞, 陈一锋, 胡东平, 张维胜, 王涛, 张洪来. 内脏型肥胖对腹腔镜直肠癌根治术后早期并发症的影响[J/OL]. 中华普外科手术学杂志(电子版), 2025, 19(01): 35-39.
[9] 李博, 贾蓬勃, 李栋, 李小庆. ERCP与LCBDE治疗胆总管结石继发急性重症胆管炎的效果[J/OL]. 中华普外科手术学杂志(电子版), 2025, 19(01): 60-63.
[10] 韩戟, 杨力, 陈玉. 腹部形态CT参数与完全腹腔镜全胃切除术术中失血量的关系研究[J/OL]. 中华普外科手术学杂志(电子版), 2025, 19(01): 88-91.
[11] 王露, 周丽君. 全腹腔镜下远端胃大部切除不同吻合方式对胃癌患者胃功能恢复、并发症发生率的影响[J/OL]. 中华普外科手术学杂志(电子版), 2025, 19(01): 92-95.
[12] 冯旺, 马振中, 汤林花. CT扫描三维重建在肝内胆管细胞癌腹腔镜肝切除术中的临床研究[J/OL]. 中华普外科手术学杂志(电子版), 2025, 19(01): 104-107.
[13] 王庆亮, 党兮, 师凯, 刘波. 腹腔镜联合胆道子镜经胆囊管胆总管探查取石术[J/OL]. 中华肝脏外科手术学电子杂志, 2025, 14(02): 313-313.
[14] 杨建辉, 段文斌, 马忠志, 卿宇豪. 腹腔镜下脾部分切除术[J/OL]. 中华肝脏外科手术学电子杂志, 2025, 14(02): 314-314.
[15] 叶劲松, 刘驳强, 柳胜君, 吴浩然. 腹腔镜肝Ⅶ+Ⅷ段背侧段切除[J/OL]. 中华肝脏外科手术学电子杂志, 2025, 14(02): 315-315.
阅读次数
全文


摘要


AI


AI小编
你好!我是《中华医学电子期刊资源库》AI小编,有什么可以帮您的吗?