Cost-utility analysis of contaminated appendectomy wounds

Karen Brasel, D. C. Borgstrom, J. A. Weigelt

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

28 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The influence of patient preference and treatment costs has not been considered in previous analyses of wound management decisions for contaminated right lower quadrant incisions. STUDY DESIGN: We performed a decision and cost-utility analysis, conducting a MEDLINE search of the postappendectomy wound infection literature to establish assumptions and assign baseline probability estimates. Institution-specific cost data were obtained, and utility assignments were made by the authors. Studies used to assign baseline probabilities fulfilled the following criteria: perforated appendix or gangrenous appendicitis, use of perioperative antibiotics active against aerobic and anaerobic bacteria, and data stratified by wound management, operative findings, and infection rate. RESULTS: We constructed a decision tree comparing three methods of wound management for contaminated right lower quadrant incisions: primary closure, delayed primary closure, and secondary closure. Utility (a quality of life measure) was assigned to ultimate health states to incorporate patient preference. We calculated the cost-utility for each method of wound management and found that primary closure was of optimum cost-utility compared with delayed primary closure and secondary closure. To gain one quality-adjusted life year treating a population of patients with contaminated incisions, primary closure saves $22,635 over delayed primary closure and another $22,340 over secondary closure. This decision, tested by two-way sensitivity analyses, was sensitive only to high primary closure infection rates. CONCLUSIONS: Challenging traditional surgical dogma, cost-utility analysis shows that primary closure is the favored method of management for contaminated right lower quadrant incisions. This analysis is specific to right lower quadrant incisions and the conclusion is valid for all estimated primary infection rates less than 0.27.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)23-30
Number of pages8
JournalJournal of the American College of Surgeons
Volume184
Issue number1
StatePublished - 1997
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

Appendectomy
Cost-Benefit Analysis
Patient Preference
Wounds and Injuries
Costs and Cost Analysis
Infection
Aerobic Bacteria
Decision Trees
Quality-Adjusted Life Years
Anaerobic Bacteria
Appendicitis
Wound Infection
MEDLINE
Health Care Costs
Quality of Life
Anti-Bacterial Agents
Health
Population

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Surgery

Cite this

Cost-utility analysis of contaminated appendectomy wounds. / Brasel, Karen; Borgstrom, D. C.; Weigelt, J. A.

In: Journal of the American College of Surgeons, Vol. 184, No. 1, 1997, p. 23-30.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Brasel, Karen ; Borgstrom, D. C. ; Weigelt, J. A. / Cost-utility analysis of contaminated appendectomy wounds. In: Journal of the American College of Surgeons. 1997 ; Vol. 184, No. 1. pp. 23-30.
@article{c7c06ac17c434143bd06d831945d1d1a,
title = "Cost-utility analysis of contaminated appendectomy wounds",
abstract = "BACKGROUND: The influence of patient preference and treatment costs has not been considered in previous analyses of wound management decisions for contaminated right lower quadrant incisions. STUDY DESIGN: We performed a decision and cost-utility analysis, conducting a MEDLINE search of the postappendectomy wound infection literature to establish assumptions and assign baseline probability estimates. Institution-specific cost data were obtained, and utility assignments were made by the authors. Studies used to assign baseline probabilities fulfilled the following criteria: perforated appendix or gangrenous appendicitis, use of perioperative antibiotics active against aerobic and anaerobic bacteria, and data stratified by wound management, operative findings, and infection rate. RESULTS: We constructed a decision tree comparing three methods of wound management for contaminated right lower quadrant incisions: primary closure, delayed primary closure, and secondary closure. Utility (a quality of life measure) was assigned to ultimate health states to incorporate patient preference. We calculated the cost-utility for each method of wound management and found that primary closure was of optimum cost-utility compared with delayed primary closure and secondary closure. To gain one quality-adjusted life year treating a population of patients with contaminated incisions, primary closure saves $22,635 over delayed primary closure and another $22,340 over secondary closure. This decision, tested by two-way sensitivity analyses, was sensitive only to high primary closure infection rates. CONCLUSIONS: Challenging traditional surgical dogma, cost-utility analysis shows that primary closure is the favored method of management for contaminated right lower quadrant incisions. This analysis is specific to right lower quadrant incisions and the conclusion is valid for all estimated primary infection rates less than 0.27.",
author = "Karen Brasel and Borgstrom, {D. C.} and Weigelt, {J. A.}",
year = "1997",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "184",
pages = "23--30",
journal = "Journal of the American College of Surgeons",
issn = "1072-7515",
publisher = "Elsevier Inc.",
number = "1",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Cost-utility analysis of contaminated appendectomy wounds

AU - Brasel, Karen

AU - Borgstrom, D. C.

AU - Weigelt, J. A.

PY - 1997

Y1 - 1997

N2 - BACKGROUND: The influence of patient preference and treatment costs has not been considered in previous analyses of wound management decisions for contaminated right lower quadrant incisions. STUDY DESIGN: We performed a decision and cost-utility analysis, conducting a MEDLINE search of the postappendectomy wound infection literature to establish assumptions and assign baseline probability estimates. Institution-specific cost data were obtained, and utility assignments were made by the authors. Studies used to assign baseline probabilities fulfilled the following criteria: perforated appendix or gangrenous appendicitis, use of perioperative antibiotics active against aerobic and anaerobic bacteria, and data stratified by wound management, operative findings, and infection rate. RESULTS: We constructed a decision tree comparing three methods of wound management for contaminated right lower quadrant incisions: primary closure, delayed primary closure, and secondary closure. Utility (a quality of life measure) was assigned to ultimate health states to incorporate patient preference. We calculated the cost-utility for each method of wound management and found that primary closure was of optimum cost-utility compared with delayed primary closure and secondary closure. To gain one quality-adjusted life year treating a population of patients with contaminated incisions, primary closure saves $22,635 over delayed primary closure and another $22,340 over secondary closure. This decision, tested by two-way sensitivity analyses, was sensitive only to high primary closure infection rates. CONCLUSIONS: Challenging traditional surgical dogma, cost-utility analysis shows that primary closure is the favored method of management for contaminated right lower quadrant incisions. This analysis is specific to right lower quadrant incisions and the conclusion is valid for all estimated primary infection rates less than 0.27.

AB - BACKGROUND: The influence of patient preference and treatment costs has not been considered in previous analyses of wound management decisions for contaminated right lower quadrant incisions. STUDY DESIGN: We performed a decision and cost-utility analysis, conducting a MEDLINE search of the postappendectomy wound infection literature to establish assumptions and assign baseline probability estimates. Institution-specific cost data were obtained, and utility assignments were made by the authors. Studies used to assign baseline probabilities fulfilled the following criteria: perforated appendix or gangrenous appendicitis, use of perioperative antibiotics active against aerobic and anaerobic bacteria, and data stratified by wound management, operative findings, and infection rate. RESULTS: We constructed a decision tree comparing three methods of wound management for contaminated right lower quadrant incisions: primary closure, delayed primary closure, and secondary closure. Utility (a quality of life measure) was assigned to ultimate health states to incorporate patient preference. We calculated the cost-utility for each method of wound management and found that primary closure was of optimum cost-utility compared with delayed primary closure and secondary closure. To gain one quality-adjusted life year treating a population of patients with contaminated incisions, primary closure saves $22,635 over delayed primary closure and another $22,340 over secondary closure. This decision, tested by two-way sensitivity analyses, was sensitive only to high primary closure infection rates. CONCLUSIONS: Challenging traditional surgical dogma, cost-utility analysis shows that primary closure is the favored method of management for contaminated right lower quadrant incisions. This analysis is specific to right lower quadrant incisions and the conclusion is valid for all estimated primary infection rates less than 0.27.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=0031014598&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=0031014598&partnerID=8YFLogxK

M3 - Article

C2 - 8989296

AN - SCOPUS:0031014598

VL - 184

SP - 23

EP - 30

JO - Journal of the American College of Surgeons

JF - Journal of the American College of Surgeons

SN - 1072-7515

IS - 1

ER -