IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jijerp/v19y2022i20p13553-d947289.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A Cost-Utility Analysis of Mesh Prophylaxis in the Prevention of Incisional Hernias following Stoma Closure Surgery

Author

Listed:
  • Yusuf Sheikh

    (Faculty of Life Sciences and Medicine, King’s College London, London WC2R 2LS, UK)

  • Hareef Asunramu

    (Faculty of Medicine, Imperial College London, London SW7 2DD, UK)

  • Heather Low

    (Faculty of Medical Sciences, University College London, London WC1E 6DE, UK)

  • Dev Gakhar

    (Faculty of Medicine, Imperial College London, London SW7 2DD, UK)

  • Keerthi Muthukumar

    (Faculty of Medicine, Imperial College London, London SW7 2DD, UK)

  • Husam Yassin

    (Faculty of Medicine, Imperial College London, London SW7 2DD, UK)

  • Laure de Preux

    (Department of Economics and Public Policy, Business School, Imperial College London, London SW7 2AZ, UK)

Abstract

Background: Stoma closure is a widely performed surgical procedure, with 6295 undertaken in England in 2018 alone. This procedure is associated with significant complications; incisional hernias are the most severe, occurring in 30% of patients. Complications place considerable financial burden on the NHS; hernia costs are estimated at GBP 114 million annually. As recent evidence (ROCSS, 2020) found that prophylactic meshes significantly reduce rates of incisional hernias following stoma closure surgery, an evaluation of this intervention vs. standard procedure is essential. Methods: A cost-utility analysis (CUA) was conducted using data from the ROCSS prospective multi-centre trial, which followed 790 patients, randomly assigned to mesh closure ( n = 394) and standard closure ( n = 396). Quality of life was assessed using mean EQ-5D-3L scores from the trial, and costs in GBP using UK-based sources over a 2-year time horizon. Results: The CUA yielded an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of GBP 128,356.25 per QALY. Additionally, three univariate sensitivity analyses were performed to test the robustness of the model. Conclusion: The results demonstrate an increased benefit with mesh prophylaxis, but at an increased cost. Although the intervention is cost-ineffective and greater than the ICER threshold of GBP 30,000/QALY (NICE), further investigation into mesh prophylaxis for at risk population groups is needed.

Suggested Citation

  • Yusuf Sheikh & Hareef Asunramu & Heather Low & Dev Gakhar & Keerthi Muthukumar & Husam Yassin & Laure de Preux, 2022. "A Cost-Utility Analysis of Mesh Prophylaxis in the Prevention of Incisional Hernias following Stoma Closure Surgery," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(20), pages 1-15, October.
  • Handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:19:y:2022:i:20:p:13553-:d:947289
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/19/20/13553/pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/19/20/13553/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:19:y:2022:i:20:p:13553-:d:947289. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.