Abstract

BackgroundMany commercial and artisanal devices are utilized for temporary abdominal closure in patients being managed with an open abdomen for abdominal sepsis. The costs of materials required to treat patients with an open abdomen varies drastically. In Costa Rica, due to the lack of accurate information relating to the actual cost to manage a patient entails that the method with the least expensive materials is usually selected. Study designA single-center retrospective review of 46 patients diagnosed with abdominal sepsis and successfully treated with an open abdomen and one of the three temporary abdominal closure methods during the year 2018 in a tertiary hospital was evaluated using a gross-cost pricing model developed by the authors. The three temporary abdominal closure methods were a locally manufactured Bogota Bag, and commercial abdominal negative pressure therapy dressing and negative pressure therapy with 0.9% saline solution instillation. The per-unit-costs were hospital day and intensive care day, number of surgical procedures per patient, cost negative pressure therapy kits. ResultsStatistically significant cost reduction was observed in the cohort treated with negative pressure therapy with instillation as compared to the other temporary abdominal closure methods. The reduction of hospital length of stay, as well as fewer number of surgeries were the main contributing factors in diminishing costs. On average, the costs to treat a patient utilizing negative pressure therapy with instillation was nearly 50% lower than using the other two temporary abdominal closure methods. ConclusionsThe costs relating to managing abdominal sepsis in the septic open abdomen vary greatly according to the temporary abdominal closure utilized. If the hospital length of stay, intensive care unit length of stay and number of surgeries required are the main parameters used in determining costs, the use of negative pressure therapy with 0.9% saline solution instillation reduces costs by nearly 50% in comparison to conventional negative pressure wound therapy and Bogota Bag. In this instance, the more expensive method at first glance, obtained a considerable cost reduction when compared to therapies that utilize less expensive materials.

Highlights

  • The use of the open abdomen in the management of severe abdominal sepsis has become a common therapeutic modality [1]

  • This study looks to ascertain the cost of treating patients with abdominal sepsis that require an open abdomen approach, and are treated with three different temporary abdominal closure methods (TAC) methods, in hopes of determining if there is a cost difference with regards to the management of the same condition via three different treatment modalities, looking to determine the real cost to successfully obtain fascial closure and infectious control in patients with abdominal sepsis that require management with an open abdomen, with the intent of providing policy makers with an additional perspective as to which TAC method is most cost-effective

  • Abdominal sepsis managed with an open abdomen is a relatively uncommon condition, we selected all patients that were diagnosed with this condition and managed with an open abdomen that met the initial selection criteria, as to have both a higher group of patients to analyze, as well as to be able to execute the study during a single fiscal year, which allows for a uniform cost analysis without having to adjust for inflation or other distorting factors

Read more

Summary

Introduction

The use of the open abdomen in the management of severe abdominal sepsis has become a common therapeutic modality [1]. Many commercial and artisanal devices are utilized for temporary abdominal closure in patients being managed with an open abdomen for abdominal sepsis. Study design: A single-center retrospective review of 46 patients diagnosed with abdominal sepsis and successfully treated with an open abdomen and one of the three temporary abdominal closure methods during the year 2018 in a tertiary hospital was evaluated using a gross-cost pricing model developed by the authors. Results: Statistically significant cost reduction was observed in the cohort treated with negative pressure therapy with instillation as compared to the other temporary abdominal closure methods. The costs to treat a patient utilizing negative pressure therapy with instillation was nearly 50% lower than using the other two temporary abdominal closure methods. The more expensive method at first glance, obtained a considerable cost reduction when compared to therapies that utilize less expensive materials

Methods
Results
Discussion
Conclusion
Full Text
Published version (Free)

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call