Cost-analysis and quality of life after laparoscopic and robotic ventral mesh rectopexy for posterior compartment prolapse:a randomized trial

Abstract Background: The aim of this study was to assess, whether robotic-assistance in ventral mesh rectopexy adds benefit to laparoscopy in terms of health-related quality of life (HRQoL), cost-effectiveness and anatomical and functional outcome. Methods: A prospective randomized study was conducted on patients who underwent robot-assisted ventral mesh rectopexy (RVMR) or laparoscopic ventral mesh rectopexy (LVMR) for internal or external rectal prolapse at Oulu University Hospital, Finland, recruited in February–May 2012. The primary outcomes were health care costs from the hospital perspective and HRQoL measured by the 15D-instrument. Secondary outcomes included anatomical outcome assessed by pelvic organ prolapse quantification method and functional outcome by symptom questionnaires at 24 months follow-up. Results: There were 30 females (mean age 62.5 years, SD 11.2), 16 in the RVMR group and 14 in the LVMR group. The surgery-related costs of the RVMR were 1.5 times higher than the cost of the LVMR. At 3 months the changes in HRQoL were ‘much better’ (RVMR) and ‘slightly better’ (LVMR) but declined in both groups at 2 years (RVMR vs. LVMR, p > 0.05). The cost-effectiveness was poor at 2 years for both techniques, but if the outcomes were assumed to last for 5 years, it improved significantly. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for the RVMR compared to LVMR was €39,982/quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) at 2 years and improved to €16,707/QALYs at 5 years. Posterior wall anatomy was restored similarly in both groups. The subjective satisfaction rate was 87% in the RVMR group and 69% in the LVMR group (p = 0.83). Conclusions: Although more expensive than LVMR in the short term, RVMR is cost-effective in long-term. The minimally invasive VMR improves pelvic floor function, sexual function and restores posterior compartment anatomy. The effect on HRQoL is minor, with no differences between techniques

Reliability of bioreactance and pulse-power analysis in measuring cardiac index in patients undergoing cardiac surgery with cardiopulmonary bypass

Abstract Objectives: Less-invasive and continuous cardiac output monitors recently have been developed to monitor patient hemodynamics. The aim of this study was to compare the accuracy, precision, and trending ability of noninvasive bioreactance-based Starling SV and miniinvasive pulse-power device LiDCOrapid to bolus thermodilution technique with a pulmonary artery catheter (TDCO) when measuring cardiac index in the setting of cardiac surgery with cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB). Design: A prospective method-comparison study. Setting: Oulu University Hospital, Finland. Participants: Twenty patients undergoing cardiac surgery with CPB. Interventions: Cardiac index measurements were obtained simultaneously with TDCO intraoperatively and postoperatively, resulting in 498 measurements with Starling SV and 444 with LiDCOrapid. Measurements and Main Results: The authors used the Bland-Altman method to investigate the agreement between the devices and four-quadrant plots with error grids to assess the trending ability. The agreement between TDCO and Starling SV was qualified with a bias of 0.43 L/min/m² (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.37‐0.50), wide limits of agreement (LOA, –1.07 to 1.94 L/min/m²), and a percentage error (PE) of 66.3%. The agreement between TDCO and LiDCOrapid was qualified, with a bias of 0.22 L/min/m² (95% CI 0.16‐0.27), wide LOA (–0.93 to 1.43), and a PE of 53.2%. With both devices, trending ability was insufficient. Conclusions: The reliability of bioreactance-based Starling SV and pulse-power analyzer LiDCOrapid was not interchangeable with TDCO, thus limiting their usefulness in cardiac surgery with CPB

Reliability of bioreactance and pulse power analysis in measuring cardiac index during cytoreductive abdominal surgery with hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC)

Abstract Purpose: Various malignancies with peritoneal carcinomatosis are treated with cytoreductive surgery and hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC). The hemodynamic instability resulting from fluid balance alterations during the procedure necessitates reliable hemodynamic monitoring. The aim of the study was to compare the accuracy, precision and trending ability of two less invasive hemodynamic monitors, bioreactance-based Starling SV and pulse power device LiDCOrapid with bolus thermodilution technique with pulmonary artery catheter in the setting of cytoreductive surgery with HIPEC. Methods: Thirty-one patients scheduled for cytoreductive surgery were recruited. Twenty-three of them proceeded to HIPEC and were included to the study. Altogether 439 and 430 intraoperative bolus thermodilution injections were compared to simultaneous cardiac index readings obtained with Starling SV and LiDCOrapid, respectively. Bland-Altman method, four-quadrant plots and error grids were used to assess the agreement of the devices. Results: Comparing Starling SV with bolus thermodilution, the bias was acceptable (0.13 l min⁻¹ m⁻², 95% CI 0.05 to 0.20), but the limits of agreement were wide (− 1.55 to 1.71 l min⁻¹ m⁻²) and the percentage error was high (60.0%). Comparing LiDCOrapid with bolus thermodilution, the bias was acceptable (− 0.26 l min⁻¹ m⁻², 95% CI − 0.34 to − 0.18), but the limits of agreement were wide (− 1.99 to 1.39 l min⁻¹ m⁻²) and the percentage error was high (57.1%). Trending ability was inadequate with both devices. Conclusion: Starling SV and LiDCOrapid were not interchangeable with bolus thermodilution technique limiting their usefulness in the setting of cytoreductive surgery with HIPEC