Dataset Information

Management of Reducible Ventral Hernias: Clinical Outcomes and Cost-effectiveness of Repair at Diagnosis Versus Watchful Waiting.

ABSTRACT:

Objective

To compare long-term clinical and economic outcomes associated with 3 management strategies for reducible ventral hernia: repair at diagnosis (open or laparoscopic) and watchful waiting.

Background

There is variability in ventral hernia management. Recent data suggest watchful waiting is safe; however, long-term clinical and economic outcomes for different management strategies remain unknown.

Methods

We built a state-transition microsimulation model to forecast outcomes for individuals with reducible ventral hernia, simulating a cohort of 1 million individuals for each strategy. We derived cohort characteristics (mean age 58 years, 63% female), hospital costs, and perioperative mortality from the Nationwide Inpatient Sample (2003-2011), and additional probabilities, costs, and utilities from the literature. Outcomes included prevalence of any repair, emergent repair, and recurrence; lifetime costs; quality-adjusted life years (QALYs); and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios. We performed stochastic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses to identify parameter thresholds that affect optimal management, using a willingness-to-pay threshold of $50,000/QALY.

Results

With watchful waiting, 39% ultimately required repair (14% emergent) and 24% recurred. Seventy per cent recurred with repair at diagnosis. Laparoscopic repair at diagnosis was cost-effective compared with open repair at diagnosis (incremental cost-effectiveness ratio $27,700/QALY). The choice of operative strategy (open vs laparoscopic) was sensitive to cost and postoperative quality of life. When perioperative mortality exceeded 5.2% or yearly recurrence exceeded 19.2%, watchful waiting became preferred.

Conclusions

Ventral hernia repair at diagnosis is very cost-effective. The choice between open and laparoscopic repair depends on surgical costs and postoperative quality of life. In patients with high risk of perioperative mortality or recurrence, watchful waiting is preferred.

SUBMITTER: Wolf LL

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7996320 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:ImportanceAdenotonsillectomy (ATE) is one of the most common surgical procedures to treat children with obstructive sleep apnea (OSA), but to our knowledge there are no randomized clinical trials confirming the benefit of surgery compared with watchful waiting in children between 2 and 4 years of age.ObjectiveTo determine whether ATE is more effective than watchful waiting for treating otherwise healthy children with mild to moderate OSA.Design, setting, and participantsThis randomized clinical trial was conducted from December 2014 to December 2017 at the Otorhinolaryngology Department of the Karolinska University Hospital, Stockholm, Sweden. A total of 60 children, 2 to 4 years of age, with an obstructive apnea-hypopnea index (OAHI) score of 2 or greater and less than 10, were randomized to ATE (n = 29) or watchful waiting (n = 31). A total of 53 participants (88%; ATE, n = 25; watchful waiting, n = 28) completed the study. Data were analyzed from August 2018 to December 2018.InterventionsAdenotonsillectomy.Main outcomes and measuresThe primary outcome was the difference between the groups in mean OAHI score change. Secondary outcomes were other polysomnography parameters, score on the Obstructive Sleep Apnea-18 (OSA-18) questionnaire, and subgroup analyses. Polysomnography and the OSA-18 questionnaire were completed at baseline and after 6 months.ResultsOf the 60 included children, 34 (57%) were boys and the mean (SD) age at first polysomnography was 38 (9) months. Both groups had a decrease in mean OAHI score, and the difference in mean OAHI score change between the groups was small (-1.0; 95% CI, -2.4 to 0.5), in favor of ATE. However, there were large differences between the groups in favor of ATE regarding the OSA-18 questionnaire (eg, total OSA-18 score: -17; 95% CI, -24 to -10). Also, a subgroup analysis of 24 children with moderate OSA (OAHI ≥5 and <10) showed a meaningful difference in mean OAHI score change between the groups in favor of ATE (-3.1; 95% CI, -5.7 to -0.5). Of 28 children, 10 (36%) in the watchful waiting group received ATE after the follow-up, and 7 of these had moderate OSA at baseline.Conclusions and relevanceThis randomized clinical trial found only small differences between the groups regarding changes in OAHI, but further studies are needed. However, there were large improvements in quality of life after ATE. These results suggest that otherwise healthy children with mild OSA and mild effect on quality of life may benefit from watchful waiting, while children with moderate OSA should be considered for ATE.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02315911.