Sacral neuromodulation for the treatment of fecal incontinence: Analysis of cost-effectiveness

Diseases of the Colon and Rectum

Volumn 53, Issue 12, 2010, Pages 1661-1669

  Indinnimeo, M ^a   Ratto, C ^b   Moschella, C M ^a   Fiore, A ^a   Brosa, M ^d   Giardina, S ^c  

^a SAPIENZA UNIVERSITY OF ROME   (Italy)

^b CATHOLIC UNIVERSITY   (Italy)

^c Medtronic Italia   (Italy)

^d Oblikue Consulting   (Spain)

Author keywords

Cost effectiveness; External anal sphincter defect; Fecal incontinence; Markov model; Sacral neuromodulation

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; BUDGET; COST EFFECTIVENESS ANALYSIS; FECES INCONTINENCE; HEALTH SERVICE; HUMAN; NEUROMODULATION; QUALITY OF LIFE; REIMBURSEMENT;

ALGORITHMS; ANAL CANAL; COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS; DECISION SUPPORT TECHNIQUES; ELECTRIC STIMULATION THERAPY; FECAL INCONTINENCE; HUMANS; ITALY; MARKOV CHAINS; MODELS, ECONOMIC; MONTE CARLO METHOD; QUALITY OF LIFE; QUALITY-ADJUSTED LIFE YEARS;

EID: 78651519006     PISSN: 00123706     EISSN: 15300358     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/DCR.0b013e3181f46309     Document Type: Article

References (29)

1. Walter S, Hallbook O, Gotthard R, Bergmark M, Sjodahl R. A population-based study on bowel habits in a Swedish community: prevalence of faecal incontinence and constipation. Scand J Gastroenterol. 2002;37:911-916.
2. Damon H, Guye O, Seigneurin A, et al. Prevalence of anal incontinence in adults and impact on quality-of-life. Gastroenterol Clin Biol. 2006;30:37-43.
3. Perry S, Shaw C, McGrother C, et al. Prevalence of faecal incontinence in adults aged 40 years or more living in the community. Gut. 2002;50:480-484.
4. Nelson RL. Epidemiology of fecal incontinence. Gastroenterology. 2004;126: S3-S7.
5. Stenzelius K, Mattiasson A, Hallberg IR, Westergren A. Symptoms of urinary and faecal incontinence among men and women 75 + in relations to health complaints and quality of life. Neurourol Urodyn. 2004;23:211-222.
6. Teunissen TA, Lagro-Janssen AL. Fecal incontinence: prevalence and role of rupture of the anal sphincter during delivery; literature analysis [in Dutch]. Ned Tijdschr Geneeskd. 2000;144:1318-1323.
7. Tariq SH. Fecal incontinence in older adults. Clin Geriatr Med. 2007;23:857-869, vii.
8. Guise JM, Morris C, Osterweil P, et al. Incidence of fecal incontinence after childbirth. Obstet Gynecol. 2007;109:281-288.
9. Deutekom M, Dobben AC, Dijkgraaf MG, et al. Costs of outpatients with fecal incontinence. Scand J Gastroenterol. 2005;40:552-558.
10. Lahr C. Evaluation and treatment of incontinence. Practical Gastroenterol. 1988;12:27-35.
11. Jarrett ME, Mowatt G, Glazener CM, et al. Systematic review of sacral nerve stimulation for faecal incontinence and constipation. BrJSurg. 2004;91:1559-1569.
12. Altomare DF, Ratto C, Ganio E, et al. Long-term outcome of sacral nerve stimulation for fecal incontinence. Dis Colon Rectum. 2009;52:11-17.
13. Dudding TC, Meng Lee E, Faiz O, et al. Economic evaluation of sacral nerve stimulation for faecal incontinence. Br J Surg. 2008;95:1155-1163.
14. Hetzer FH, Bieler A, Hahnloser D, et al. Outcome and cost analysis of sacral nerve stimulation for faecal incontinence. BrJ Surg. 2006;93:1411-1417.
15. Brosa M, Munoz-Duyos A, Navarro-Luna A, et al. Costeffectiveness analysis of sacral neuromodulation (SNM) with Interstim for fecal incontinence patients in Spain. Curr Med Res Opin. 2008;24:907-918.
16. Briggs A, Sculpher M. An introduction to Markov modelling for economic evaluation. Pharmacoeconomics. 1998;13:397-409.
17. Madoff RD. Surgical treatment options for fecal incontinence. Gastroenterology. 2004;126: S48-54.
18. Melenhorst J, Koch SM, Uludag O, van Gemert WG, Baeten CG. Sacral neuromodulation in patients with faecal incontinence: results of the first 100 permanent implantations. Colorectal Dis. 2007;9:725-730.
19. Claxton K, Sculpher M, McCabe C, et al. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis for NICE technology assessment: not an optional extra. Health Econ. 2005;14:339-347.
20. Deutekom M, Terra MP, Dobben AC, et al. Impact of faecal incontinence severity on health domains. Colorectal Dis. 2005;7:263-269.
21. Bell CM, Chapman RH, Stone PW, Sandberg EA, Neumann PJ. An off-the-shelf help list: a comprehensive catalog of preference scores from published cost-utility analyses. Med Decis Making. 2001;21:288-294.
22. Ministero della Sanità. Aggiornamento delle tariffe delle prestazioni di assistenza ospedaliera. Ministero della Sanita. 1997; Suppl ord. alla G. U. (209).
23. Ministero della Sanita. Prestazioni di assistenza specialistica ambulatoriale erogabili nell'ambito del Servizio Sanitorio Nazionale e relative tariffe. Decreto Ministeriale 22 luglio 1996. Suppl. ord. alla G. U. n. 216, 14 settembre 1996.
24. Italian Ministry of Health. Hospital DRG Tariffs. Tariffa Unica Convenzionale per le prestazioni di assistenza ospedaliera Regole e tariffe valide per il 2006. 2006.
25. Italian Ministry of Health. Nomenclatore delle Prestazioni di assistenza specialistica ambulatoriale. [National Tariff Nomenclature] Ministero della Salute. 2006.
26. Cerzani M, Cornago D, Garattini L. I dispositivi per assorbenza: modalità di acquisto e distribuzione in Italia. Economia & Politica del Farmaco. 2006;3:20-26.
27. Tejido M, Nebot S, Coma A. Estudio comparativo sobre los beneficios de la irrigación de la persona colostomizada: adaptación, confort y costes. Enferm Clin. 1999;9:7-12.
28. Lucioni C, Mazzi S, Neeser K. Analisi di costo-efficacia della terapia combinata con pioglitazone nel trattamento del diabete mellito di tipo 2 in Italia. PharmacoEconomics - Italian Research Articles. 2004;6:81-93.
29. Scroccaro G, Steffenino G, Marini P, Trippoli S, Santarlasci B. La valutazione dei benefici e dei costi dei dispositivi medici. Il caso degli stent medicati. PharmacoEconomics - Italian Research Articles. 2005;7:195-2006.