One-stop routing for surgical interventions: a cost-analysis of endoscopic groin repair
Single-visit (SV) totally extraperitoneal (TEP) inguinal hernia repair is an efficient service without impairment of safety or complication rate. Data on the economic impact of this approach are rare. The aim of this study was to compare the costs between the SV TEP and the regular TEP in an employed healthy population from a hospital and societal point of view.
Retrospectively collected hospital costs and prospectively collected societal costs were obtained from patients treated between July 2016 and January 2018. Outcome measures consisted of all documented institutional care, productivity loss and medical consumption.
For analysing the hospital costs, a total of 116 SV patients were matched to 116 regular patients. The hospital costs of a mean SV patient were €1148.78 compared to €1242.84 for a regular patient, with a mean difference of €94.06. Prospective analyses of 50 SV patients and 50 regular patients demonstrated higher societal costs for a mean regular patient (€2188.33) compared to a mean SV patient (€1621.44). The mean total cost difference between a SV TEP repair and a regular TEP repair equalled €660.95 corresponding to a 19.3% decrease in costs.
This comprehensive cost-analysis showed that in an employed, healthy population, the SV TEP repair outprices the regular TEP repair, with savings of €660.95 per patient, reflecting a 19.3% decrease in costs. This routing is mainly interesting from a societal point of view as the difference is mainly impacted by a decrease in societal costs.
KeywordsInguinal hernia Single visit One-stop shop Cost-analysis TEP
Compliance with ethical standards
Coen V van Hessen, Marleen M Roos, Geert WJ Frederix, Egbert Jan MM Verleisdonk, Geert Jan Clevers, Paul HP Davids and Josephina PJ Burgmans declare that they have no conflict of interests.
All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki Declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.
Ethical approval was obtained by the Regional Medical Ethics Committee and the hospitals Ethics Board.
- 2.Rotter T, Kinsman L, James E, Machotta A, Gothe H, Willis J, Snow P, Kugler J (2010) Clinical pathways: effects on professional practice, patient outcomes, length of stay and hospital costs. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 3:CD006632Google Scholar
- 5.Statline, Centraal Bureau voor statistiekGoogle Scholar
- 15.Tan SS (2009) Microcosting in economic evaluations: issues of accuracy, feasibility, consistency and genera-lisability. Instituut Beleid en Management Gezondheidszorg (iBMG), 1st edn. Erasmus Universiteit Rotterdam, RotterdamGoogle Scholar
- 16.Hakkaart-van Roijen L, Van der Linden N, Bouwmans CAM, Kanters T, Tan SS (2015) Dutch manual for costing: methods and reference prices for economic evaluations in healthcare. Institute for Medical Technology Assessment (IMTA) RotterdamGoogle Scholar
- 18.Zorginstituut Nederland. Oktober (2017). https://www.medicijnkosten.nl/
- 20.Olson JK, Deming LA, King DR, Rager TM, Gartner S, Huibregtse N, Moss RL, Besner GE (2017) Single visit surgery for pediatric ambulatory surgical procedures: a satisfaction and cost analysis. J Pediatr Surg S0022–3468(17):30643–30647Google Scholar
- 22.Vollrath ME (ed) (2006) Handbook of personality and health. Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
- 24.Steptoe A (1993) The significance of personal control in health and disease. In: Steptoe A, Appels A (eds) Stress, personal control and health. Wiley, Chichester, pp 309–318Google Scholar
- 25.Scharloo M, Kaptein AA (1997) Measurement of illness perceptions in patients with chronic somatic illness: a review. In: Petrie KJ, Weinman J (eds) Perceptions of health and illness: current research applications. Harwood, London, pp 103–135Google Scholar