Percutaneous cryoablation vs. open partial nephrectomy in small kidney cancers: the Italian experience.

Autor:	Celia A; Department of Urology, San Bassiano Hospital, Bassano del Grappa, Vicenza, Italy., Pusceddu C; Department of Oncological and Interventional Radiology, A. Businco Oncological Hospital, AO Brotzu, Cagliari, Italy., Silvestri T; Department of Urology, San Bassiano Hospital, Bassano del Grappa, Vicenza, Italy., Gidaro GB; BTG, Milan, Italy., Iannello F; MA Provider, Milan, Italy - iannello@maprovider.com., Lanati EP; MA Provider, Milan, Italy., D'Ausilio A; MA Provider, Milan, Italy.
Jazyk:	angličtina
Zdroj:	Minerva urology and nephrology [Minerva Urol Nephrol] 2021 Apr; Vol. 73 (2), pp. 178-186. Date of Electronic Publication: 2020 Feb 19.
DOI:	10.23736/S2724-6051.20.03625-5
Abstrakt:	Introduction: The aim of the present work was to analyze the economic impact of PCA (percutaneous cryoablation) vs. OPN (open partial nephrectomy), as it represents the most common standard of care for SRMs (small renal masses), namely T1a renal cancers (<4 cm), in Italy. Evidence Acquisition: A cost analysis was performed to compare the difference of the total perioperative costs between PCA and OPN, both from the perspective of the National Healthcare System and the hospital. Clinical and resources consumption inputs were retrieved by a non-systematic literature search on scientific databases, complemented by a grey literature research, and validated by expert opinion. Costs calculation for the NHS perspective were based on reference tariffs published by the National Ministry of Health, while for the hospital perspective, unit costs published in the grey literature were used to compare the two alternatives. Evidence Synthesis: Assuming the NHS perspective, the cost analysis shows there is an economic advantage in using PCA vs. OPN (€4080 vs. €7541) for the treatment of SRMs. Hospitalization time is the driver of the total costs, while the costs of complications are quite negligible in both groups. From the hospital perspective the costs of PCA is slightly higher (+€737) than OPN, with cryoprobes contributing as the greatest cost component. However, this increase is quite restrained and is offset by an inferior use of healthcare resources (surgery room, healthcare personnel, length of stay in the hospital). Conclusions: According to our analysis, PCA results an advantageous technique compared to OPN respectively in terms of costs and resource consumption from both the NHS and the hospital perspective.
Databáze:	MEDLINE
Externí odkaz:	Zobrazit plný text záznamu