Economic efficiency of semi-conductor surgical laser device use in anorectal surgery

Abstract

Aim. To estimate the economic efficiency of laser technology use in complex treatment of patients with benign anorectal diseases in a day ward or as an out-patients. Methods. «Mediola-Compact» semiconductor laser (manufactured by «Fotek» ldt, Belarus) was used to treat chronic hemorrhoids and chronic anal fissures. Interstitial submucosal tissue destruction device developed by authors (Republic of Belarus Patent for effective prototype №8755) was used, allowing to cause extensional destruction while inserted into the tissue. 297 surgical interventions were performed during 3 years, among them 157 patients underwent surgery while in a day ward, 140 - as an out-patients. Prevented indirect expenses like prevented admission fees, medical certificate compensations, prevented Gross Domestic Product reduction as a result of an average hospital stay reduction were assessed for economic efficiency calculation. Results. Total economic benefit of low-invasive interventions (as a reduction of expenses on admission fees and medical certificate compensations) for 3 years term in patients with anorectal diseases treated using the examined management and laser treatment methods was assessed as 140 250 US dollars. The overall economic efficiency on low-invasive laser technology is described with cost-effectiveness coefficient of 2.36, or 236%, compared to the conventional surgical treatment. Conclusion. Laser technology use in patients with benign anorectal diseases allows to significantly decrease the hospital stay using the day ward model, economic efficiency of the low-invasive laser technology as a complex treatment component in patients with chronic hemorrhoids and chronic anal fissures allows to cover the expenses for its introduction within 1 year.

Keywords

healthcare management / the semi-conductor laser / economic efficiency / anorectal diseases / low-invasive proctology

References

[1] Адамян А.А., Магомадов Р.Х., Кутин А.А. Особенности хирургического лечения в центре амбулаторной хирургии // Анн. пластич., реконстр. и эстетич. хир. - 2007. - №1. - С. 80-83.

[2] Воробьёв В.В. Стационарозамещающая медицинская помощь в хирургии // Амб. хир. Стационарозамещ. технол. - 2009. - №3-4. - С. 6-8.

[3] Гейниц А.В., Елисова Т.Г. Лазеры в хирургическом лечении геморроя // Лазерн. мед. - 2009. - №1. - С. 31-35.

[4] Загрядский Е.А., Горелов С.И. Трансанальная допплер-контролируемая дезартеризация в сочетании с мукопексией в лечении геморроя III-IV стадии // Колопроктология. - 2010. - №2. - С. 8-14.

[5] Кузьминов А.М., Борисов И.Ф. Геморроидэктомия с применением высоких энергий // Колопроктология. - 2009. - №3. - С. 46-52.

[6] Лебедев Н.Н., Шихметов А.Н., Воротницкий С.И. Стационарозамещающие технологии в поликлинических условиях - реальность и перспективы // Амбул. хир. Стационарозамещ. технол. - 2007. - №2. - С. 3-4.

[7] Мосиенко Н.И., Кутин А.А., Магомадов P.Х. Медицинская и экономическая эффективность работы центра амбулаторной хирургии // Рос. мед. ж. - 2001. - №5. - С. 9-11.

[8] Мухин А.Г., Волков А.В., Комарова М.Ю. Лечение геморроя в амбулаторных условиях // Колопроктология. - 2010. - №1. - С. 18-21.

[9] Шахрай С.В., Гаин Ю.М. Организационные аспекты работы городского центра амбулаторной хирургии // Амбул. хир. Стационарозамещ. технол. - 2009. - №3-4. - C. 20.

[10] American Gastroenterological Association Medical Position Statement: diagnosis and treatment of hemorrhoids // Gastroenterology. - 2004. - Vol. 126. - P. 1461-1462.

[11] Department of Health. Day surgery: operational guide. London: Department of Health. - London, 2002. - 32 p.

[12] Kosorok P., Mlakar B. Haemorrhoidectomy as a one-day surgical procedure: modified Ferguson technique // Tech. Coloproctol. - 2005. - Vol. 9. - P. 57-59.

[13] Phillips D., Healy J. Extended day surgery // J. One Day Surgery. - 1999. - Vol. 8. - P. 5-6.

RIGHTS & PERMISSIONS

Shakhrai S.V., Gain Y.M., Gain M.Y., Sokolov A.Y.