ArticleTechniques in coloproctology2025
Hospital costs of different treatment strategies for anastomotic leakage after total mesorectal excision: a multicentre cost analysis.
Article in Techniques in coloproctology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
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.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundLimited data exist on hospital costs incurred by anastomotic leakage (AL), particularly in relation to specific treatment approaches. This study aimed to analyse the incremental hospital costs of AL after total mesorectal excision (TME), stratified by treatment strategy, over a 1-year time horizon.
methodsPatients undergoing total mesorectal excision (TME) for rectal cancer (2020-2023), included in the control cohort of the IMARI-study at 15 Dutch centres, were analysed. A cost analysis was conducted according to Dutch National Healthcare Institute guidelines. The primary outcome was the incremental hospital costs incurred by patients with AL detected within 30 days postoperatively, stratified by treatment strategy.
resultsThe analysis compared treatment costs in 32 patients with AL and 82 patients without AL. The average hospital costs per patient in the first postoperative year were €15.312. In patients with AL, the mean incremental costs were €24.333. Major cost drivers in the AL group were prolonged hospitalization (+€13.150) and (re)interventions (+€8.910). The treatment costs differed significantly between strategies: no faecal diversion (€10.062), faecal diversion with passive drainage (€23.903), faecal diversion with active drainage (€35.552), and salvage surgery (€38.793).
conclusionsAL after TME resulted in a nearly fourfold increase in hospital costs compared with patients without AL. Salvage surgery was the most expensive treatment strategy, followed by faecal diversion with active drainage. Future studies should evaluate how these treatment costs relate to clinical success rates, including rates of chronic pelvic sepsis and permanent stomas.
trial registrationThis study used data from the IMARI-study. The IMARI-study is registered with the Dutch Central Committee on Research Involving Human Subjects (NL67600.018.18) and is submitted to the http://www.onderzoekmetmensen.nl/en database (NL-OMON26456 and NL-OMON55903).
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.