The inpatient burden of abdominal and gynecological adhesiolysis in the US

BMC Surgery

Alan Johns¹  Malcolm Wilson³  Keith L Davis²  Sean D Candrilli²  Bela Bapat²  Vanja Sikirica⁴ 

[1]Texas Health Care, Fort Worth, TX 76109 USA

[2]RTI Health Solutions, 200 Park Offices, Research Triangle Park, NC 27709 USA

[3]The Christie NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester, M20 4BX, UK

[4]Shire Pharmaceuticals, Wayne, PA 19087 USA

关键词: hospitalizations;    burden of illness;    gynecological;    abdominal;    adhesiolysis;    Adhesions;   

Others  :  1123453
DOI  :  10.1186/1471-2482-11-13

 received in 2011-01-05, accepted in 2011-06-09,  发布年份 2011

【 摘 要 】

Background

Adhesions are fibrous bands of scar tissue, often a result of surgery, that form between internal organs and tissues, joining them together abnormally. Postoperative adhesions frequently occur following abdominal surgery, and are associated with a large economic burden. This study examines the inpatient burden of adhesiolysis in the United States (i.e., number and rate of events, cost, length of stay [LOS]).

Methods

Hospital discharge data for patients with primary and secondary adhesiolysis were analyzed using the 2005 Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project's Nationwide Inpatient Sample. Procedures were aggregated by body system.

Results

We identified 351,777 adhesiolysis-related hospitalizations: 23.2% for primary and 76.8% for secondary adhesiolysis. The average LOS was 7.8 days for primary adhesiolysis. We found that 967,332 days of care were attributed to adhesiolysis-related procedures, with inpatient expenditures totaling $2.3 billion ($1.4 billion for primary adhesiolysis; $926 million for secondary adhesiolysis). Hospitalizations for adhesiolysis increased steadily by age and were higher for women. Of secondary adhesiolysis procedures, 46.3% involved the female reproductive tract, resulting in 57,005 additional days of care and $220 million in attributable costs.

Conclusions

Adhesiolysis remain an important surgical problem in the United States. Hospitalization for this condition leads to high direct surgical costs, which should be of interest to providers and payers.

【 授权许可】

   
2011 Sikirica et al; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.

【 参考文献 】

• [1]Beck DE: Understanding abdominal adhesions. Ostomy Q 2001, 38(2):50-51.
• [2]Ray NF, Denton WG, Thamer M, Henderson SC, Perry S: Abdominal adhesiolysis: inpatient care and expenditures in the United States in 1994. J Am Coll Surg 1998, 186(1):1-9.
• [3]Menzies D, Parker M, Hoare R, Knight A: Small bowel obstruction due to postoperative adhesions: treatment patterns and associated costs in 110 hospital admissions. Ann R Coll Surg Engl 2001, 83:40-46.
• [4]diZerega GS, Tulandi T: Prevention of intra-abdominal adhesions in gynaecological surgery. Reprod Biomed Online 2008, 17:303-306.
• [5]Tingstedt B, Isaksson J, Andersson R: Long-term follow-up and costs analysis following surgery for small bowel obstruction caused by intra-abdominal adhesions. Br J Surg 2007, 94:743-748.
• [6]Ellis H, Moran BJ, Thompson JN, Parker MC, Wilson MS, Menzies D, McGuire A, Lower AM, Hawthorn RJ, O'Brien F, Buchan S, Crowe AM: Adhesion-related hospital readmissions after abdominal and pelvic surgery: a retrospective cohort study. Lancet 1999, 353:1476-1480.
• [7]Parker MC, Ellis H, Moran BJ, Thompson JN, Wilson MS, Menzies D, McGuire A, Lower AM, Hawthorn RJ, O'Briena F, Buchan S, Crowe AM: Postoperative adhesions: ten-year follow-up of 12,584 patients undergoing lower abdominal surgery. Dis Colon Rectum 2001, 44:822-829.
• [8]Lower AM, Hawthorn RJ, Ellis H, O'Brien F, Buchan S, Crowe AM: The impact of adhesions on hospital readmissions over ten years after 8489 open gynaecological operations: an assessment from the Surgical and Clinical Adhesions Research Study. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 2000, 107:855-862.
• [9]Meagher AP, Moller C, Hoffmann DC: Non-operative treatment of small bowel obstruction following appendectomy or operation on the ovary or tube. Br J Surg 1993, 80:1310-1311.
• [10]Ray NF, Larsen JW, Stillman RJ, Jacobs RJ: Economic impact of hospitalizations for lower abdominal adhesiolysis in the United States in 1988. Surg Gynecol Obstet 1993, 176:271-276.
• [11]HCUP Nationwide Inpatient Sample. Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project (HCUP) [http://www.hcup-us.ahrq.gov/nisoverview.jsp] webcite
• [12]Steiner C, Elixhauser A, Schnaier J: The Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project: an overview. Eff Clin Pract 2002, 5(3):143-151.
• [13]US Bureau of Labor Statistics. Consumer Price Index for medical services [http://data.bls.gov/PDQ/outside.jsp?survey=cu] webcite
• [14]SAS Institute Inc: SAS 9.1.3. Cary, NC: SAS Institute Inc; 2003.
• [15]Research Triangle Institute: SUDAAN (Release 9.0.1). Research Triangle Park, NC: Research Triangle Institute; 2005.
• [16]Gutt CN, Oniu T, Schemmer P, Mehrabi A, Büchler MW: Fewer adhesions induced by laparoscopic surgery? Surg Endosc 2004, 18(6):898-906.
• [17]Parker MC, Wilson MS, Menzies D, Sunderland G, Clark DN, Knight AD, Crowe AM, Surgical and Clinical Adhesions Research (SCAR) Group: The SCAR-3 study: 5-year adhesion-related readmission risk following lower abdominal surgical procedures. Colorectal Dis 2005, 7:551-558.