TIPP and Lichtenstein modalities for inguinal hernia repair: a cost minimisation analysis alongside a randomised trial
Publication year
2013Source
European Journal of Health Economics, 14, 6, (2013), pp. 1027-34ISSN
Publication type
Article / Letter to editor

Display more detailsDisplay less details
Organization
Surgery
Health Evidence
IQ Healthcare
Primary and Community Care
Radiation Oncology
Former Organization
Health Evidence
Journal title
European Journal of Health Economics
Volume
vol. 14
Issue
iss. 6
Page start
p. 1027
Page end
p. 34
Subject
NCEBP 2: Evaluation of complex medical interventions ONCOL 4: Quality of Care; NCEBP 2:Evaluation of complex medical interventions ONCOL 4:Quality of Care; NCEBP 6: Quality of nursing and allied health care; NCEBP 7: Effective primary care and public health; ONCOL 4: Quality of Care; NCEBP 6: Quality of nursing and allied health careAbstract
The transinguinal preperitoneal (TIPP) technique using a soft mesh with a memory ring was developed recently for inguinal hernia repair. To compare TIPP with the Lichtenstein method, a randomised trial was conducted (ISRCTN93798494). The aim of this study was to perform an economic evaluation of the TIPP modality compared to the Lichtenstein modality from both a hospital and societal perspective alongside the clinical trial. The TULIP study was a double-blind randomised clinical trial comparing two techniques for inguinal hernia repair (TIPP and Lichtenstein). Correct generation of the allocation sequence, allocation concealment, blinding, and follow-up were used/applied according to the recommendations of the Cochrane Handbook. Next to the cost drivers, the short-form-36 health survey (SF-36) data from the TULIP trial was used to determine utility. The SF-36 data from the TULIP trial were revised using the SF-6D algorithm according to Brazier. Two scenarios-a hospital and a societal perspective-were presented. If the analyses showed no difference in effects (on the SF-6D) the cost effectiveness decision rule to cost minimisation was altered. No significant difference in SF-6D utility between both modalities was found (mean difference: 0.888, 95 % CI -1.02 to 1.23); consequently, the economic decision rule became cost minimisation. For the hospital perspective no significant differences in costs were found (mean difference: <euro>-13, 95 % CI <euro>-130 to <euro>104). However, when including productivity gains in the analysis, significant differences (P = 0.037) in costs favouring the TIPP modality (mean saving: <euro>1,472, 95 % CI <euro>463-<euro>2,714) were found. The results show that TIPP is a cost-saving inguinal hernia repair technique compared to the Lichtenstein modality against equal effectiveness expressed as quality adjusted life week at 1 year given a societal perspective. In the trial, TIPP patients showed on average a quicker recovery of 6.5 days compared to Lichtenstein patients.
This item appears in the following Collection(s)
- Academic publications [204994]
- Faculty of Medical Sciences [81051]
Upload full text
Use your RU credentials (u/z-number and password) to log in with SURFconext to upload a file for processing by the repository team.