Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32566220›Full record

ArticleAnnals of medicine and surgery (2012)2020

Cost evaluation of temporary abdominal closure methods in abdominal sepsis patients successfully treated with an open abdomen. Should we take temporary abdominal closure methods at face value? Health economic evaluation.

Alfredo Sanchez Betancourt, Gonzalez Cole Milagros, Pablo Sibaja, Luis Fernandez, Scott Norwood

Open access · diamondAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Annals of medicine and surgery (2012), 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
0.8field-weighted citation impact, top 24% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

4 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Alfredo Sanchez BetancourtCentro de Investigación Clínica de Oriente, Universidad Estatal a Distancia, Sabanilla, Escazú, San Jose, Costa Rica.
Gonzalez Cole MilagrosCentro de Investigación Clínica de Oriente, Universidad Estatal a Distancia, Sabanilla, Escazú, San Jose, Costa Rica.
Pablo SibajaHospital Mexico, La Uruca, Costa Rica.
Luis FernandezUT Health at Tyler, TX, USA.
Scott NorwoodUT Health at Tyler, TX, USA.
Distance State University · CRThe University of Texas Health Science Center at Tyler · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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.

Indexed as

Abdominal instillationAbdominal sepsisAcute care surgery and traumaEconomic health evaluationGeneral surgeryNegative pressure therapyOpen abdomenTemporary abdominal closure

Identifiers

PMID32566220
PMCPMC7296327
OpenAlexW3035329847

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.