4.5 Article Proceedings Paper

Financial Impact of Anastomotic Leakage in Colorectal Surgery

期刊

JOURNAL OF GASTROINTESTINAL SURGERY
卷 23, 期 3, 页码 580-586

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s11605-018-3954-z

关键词

Postoperative; Complications; Economics; Colonic; Diseases

向作者/读者索取更多资源

BackgroundAnastomotic leakage after colorectal surgery is a complication that requires additional treatments strongly affecting the economic outcomes. We evaluated the use of resources and the economic burden associated with anastomotic leaks following colorectal surgery.MethodsBetween January 2015 and December 2016, we retrospectively evaluated patients who underwent colorectal surgery with primary anastomosis. We compared the medical resource utilization and the DRG-based reimbursement of cases with uncomplicated surgery and cases complicated by anastomotic leakage.ResultsOf the 95 patients included in the study, 87 (92%) presented an uneventful postoperative course and 8 patients (8%) developed an anastomotic leakage requiring surgery. The statistical analysis showed no significant differences in terms of demographics, risks factor, and operative results, except the length of hospital stay (9.7 vs. 29.1days, p<0.01). The cost for 87 uncomplicated cases was 1,535,297 EUR (average cost of 17,647 EUR), whereas the cost of the 8 patients with anastomotic leakage was 575,822 EUR (average cost of 71,978 EUR) (p<0.01). For each patient, the hospital had 542 EUR profit in the uncomplicated group and a 12,181 EUR loss in the anastomotic leakage group (p<0.01). The multiple R-squared line regression analysis showed that factors independently related to costs were age (p=0.05) and length of hospital stay (p=0.01).ConclusionsIn terms of economic impact, the occurrence of an anastomotic leakage has a large negative influence on medical resource utilization, so that, despite the complication-related increase of DRG-reimbursement, every complicated case represents a financial burden for the hospital.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据