2010
DOI: 10.1590/s0004-28032010000200008
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Abstract: -Context -Studies in the area of health economics are still poorly explored and it is known that the cost savings in this area is becoming more necessary, provided that strict criteria. Objective -To perform a cost-effectiveness analysis of spinal anesthesia versus local anesthesia plus sedation for loop colostomy closure. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratio: R$ -474.78, indicating that the strategy with local anesthesia plus sedation is cost saving. Conclusion -In the present investigation, loop colostomy cl… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1

Citation Types

0
1
0

Year Published

2014
2014
2021
2021

Publication Types

Select...
3
2

Relationship

0
5

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 5 publications
(1 citation statement)
references
References 14 publications
0
1
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Where providers have limited training and rescue medicines are often unavailable, the safety profile for these approaches is greater ( Both local and regional anesthetic techniques are low cost and low technology; they offer achievable proficiency and have a good safety record when basic sterile techniques are employed and key safety steps are observed. Few direct comparisons of local anesthesia versus neuroaxial anesthesia, such as spinal anesthesia, have been performed in LMICs; however, Vaz and others (2010) report no increase in operative time, and significant reductions in recovery room time and immediate postoperative pain, in a group receiving local anesthesia and intravenous sedation for loop colostomy. This technique was cost saving when compared with spinal anesthesia for the same procedure.…”
Section: Efficacy and Cost-effectivenessmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Where providers have limited training and rescue medicines are often unavailable, the safety profile for these approaches is greater ( Both local and regional anesthetic techniques are low cost and low technology; they offer achievable proficiency and have a good safety record when basic sterile techniques are employed and key safety steps are observed. Few direct comparisons of local anesthesia versus neuroaxial anesthesia, such as spinal anesthesia, have been performed in LMICs; however, Vaz and others (2010) report no increase in operative time, and significant reductions in recovery room time and immediate postoperative pain, in a group receiving local anesthesia and intravenous sedation for loop colostomy. This technique was cost saving when compared with spinal anesthesia for the same procedure.…”
Section: Efficacy and Cost-effectivenessmentioning
confidence: 99%