Quality of Life Gain After Septorhinoplasty: An Analysis of Health Utility and Cost Utility Values Associated with Septorhinoplasty

Oladokun, Dare; Baumgart, André; Baumann, Ingo; Bulut, Olcay Cem

doi:10.1007/s00266-018-1226-7

Cited by 6 publications

(8 citation statements)

References 24 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Twenty studies included a CUA in addition to deriving original HSUVs. 20 , 22 , 24 , 26 , 27 , 30 – 32 , 34 , 36 , 37 , 51 , 56 , 57 , 60 , 62 , 66 , 68 , 69 , 73 …”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…An estimated 13 studies clearly stated response rates greater than 60%. 22 – 24 , 29 – 32 , 51 , 55 , 56 , 60 , 61 , 64 Where appropriate, most longitudinal studies reported reasons or loss to follow up (n = 11 studies); however, few studies reported the extent of missing data and how it was handled (3.57%). The summed scores are found in Table 1 , and the individual scores in Supplemental Digital Content 3.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The study characteristics are summarized in Table 1. Content included musculoskeletal (MSK)/abdominal wall reconstruction (n = 1, 1.79%), 20 breast (n = 17, 30.4%), 21–37 skin/body contouring (n = 4, 7.14%), 38–41 facial plastics (n = 13, 23.2%), 42–54 hand/upper extremity (n = 15, 26.8%), 55–69 pediatrics/craniofacial (n = 4, 7.14%), 70–73 and lower extremity (n = 2, 3.57%). 74,75 Direct measurements were most frequent (TTO: n = 32, 57.1%; VAS: n = 31, 55.4%; SG: n = 26, 46.4%).…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

A Systematic Review of Health State Utility Values in the Plastic Surgery Literature

Christopher

Morris

Patel

et al. 2021

Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery - Global Open

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Cost-utility analyses assess health gains acquired by interventions by incorporating weighted health state utility values (HSUVs). HSUVs are important in plastic and reconstructive surgery (PRS) because they include qualitative metrics when comparing operative techniques or interventions. We systematically reviewed the literature to identify the extent and quality of existing original utilities research within PRS. Methods: A systematic review of articles with original PRS utility data was conducted in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for a Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis guidelines. Subspecialty, survey sample size, and respondent characteristics were extracted. For each HSUV, the utility measure [direct (standard gamble, time trade off, visual analog scale) and/or indirect], mean utility score, and measure of variance were recorded. Similar HSUVs were pooled into weighted averages based on sample size if they were derived from the same utility measure. Results: In total, 348 HSUVs for 194 disease states were derived from 56 studies within seven PRS subspecialties. Utility studies were most common in breast (n = 17, 30.4%) and hand/upper extremity (n = 15, 26.8%), and direct measurements were most frequent [visual analog scale (55.4%), standard gamble (46.4%), time trade off (57.1%)]. Studies surveying the general public had more respondents (n = 165, IQR 103-299) than those that surveyed patients (n = 61, IQR 48-79) or healthcare professionals (n = 42, IQR 10-109). HSUVs for 18 health states were aggregated. Conclusions: The HSUV literature within PRS is scant and heterogeneous. Researchers should become familiar with these outcomes, as integrating utility and cost data will help illustrate that the impact of certain interventions are cost-effective when we consider patient quality of life.

show abstract

“…Twenty studies included a CUA in addition to deriving original HSUVs. 20 , 22 , 24 , 26 , 27 , 30 – 32 , 34 , 36 , 37 , 51 , 56 , 57 , 60 , 62 , 66 , 68 , 69 , 73 …”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

A Systematic Review of Health State Utility Values in the Plastic Surgery Literature

Christopher

Morris

Patel

et al. 2021

Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery - Global Open

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…This consists of the quotient of the costs divided by the gain in the calculated quality of life. Analysis in the field of septorhinoplasty show a mean QALY gain of 0.04 points [46]. The significantly higher published values of 0.08 always referred to combined surgery of the nose including the paranasal sinuses [47].…”

Section: Quality and Costs -The Example Of Septorhinoplastymentioning

confidence: 99%

Welche Qualität macht den Unterschied?

Dacho

2020

Laryngo-Rhino-Otol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ZusAmmenfAssungIn kaum einem anderen Bereich ist das Ergebnis so offensichtlich, wie bei der plastisch-ästhetischen Nasenchirurgie. Umsomehr spielen sowohl die Qualität des Eingriffs und im Bereich der Ästhetik die Qualität des Ergebnisses eine herausragende Rolle. Hierbei sind die Erwartungen und der Anspruch des Operateurs nicht immer deckungsgleich mit der des Patienten. Des Weiteren haben Kostenträger, im Falle von Kombinationsoperationen, einen eigenen Fokus zum Thema Qualität, der häufig mit Wirtschaftlichkeit verwechselt wird. Objektive Kriterien spielen für den Arzt eine wesentliche Rolle, wobei für die Patienten sehr häufig weiche Kriterien von wesentlicher Bedeutung sind. Dies ist umso diffiziler, da Schönheit im Auge des Betrachters liegt und mit funktionellen Kriterien, wie Atmung und Riechen vereinbar sein müssen. In der Vielzahl von Qualitätskriterien fällt es dem Laien schwer die richtige Arztwahl zu treffen, insbesondere angesichts unzähliger Siegel, Zertifkate und des Einflusses des Internets bzw. von Social Media. Aber auch der Chirurg muss aus einer Vielzahl von Kongressen, Kursen und Symposien herausfinden, welche dieser Veranstaltungen eine bestimmte Mindestqualität garantiert. Trotz einer enormen Veränderung und Verfeinerung der rhinochirurgischen OP-Techniken im Rahmen der letzten Jahrzehnte, wird die Ergebnisqualität seitens der Patienten konstant vor die Prozedurqualität gestellt. Dieses Referat versucht eine Standortbestimmung möglichst objektivierbarer Qualitätsindikatoren in Kombination mit unterschiedlichen Anforderungen und Standpunkten zum Thema Qualität -aus Sicht des Arztes, des Patienten und des Kostenträgers -zu beleuchten und diese im Spiegel sich verändernder OP-Techniken der plastisch-ästhetischen Nasenchirurgie zu betrachten. AbstrActIn hardly any other field outcome is more obvious as in plasticaesthetic nasal surgery. Both the quality of the procedure and the quality of the result play an outstanding role in the arena of aesthetics. Expectations and interests of the surgeon are not always congruent with those of the patient. Furthermore, payers, in the case of combination surgery, have their own focus on quality, which is often confused with economy. Objective criteria play an essential role for the physician, with soft criteria being very important for patients. This is much more difficult because beauty is in the eye of the beholder and must be compatible with functional conditions such as breathing and smelling. In the variety of quality standards, it is difficult to make the right choice of surgeon for the non-professional, especially in the face of countless seals, certificates and the influence of the internet and social media. But even the surgeon has to ascertain a minimum level of quality from a large number of congresses, courses, and symposia. Despite a tremendous change and refinement of the rhinosurgical techniques over the past decades, quality of the outcome is constantly being prioritized for process quality by the patients. This paper attempts to define mo...

show abstract

“…13 Previous research has attempted to define the value of septorhinoplasty by using health-related quality of life instruments to assess post-operative outcomes. [14][15][16][17] Oladokun et al, 16 administered The Short Form 6-dimensional (SF-6D) instrument to 67 patients before and 12-months after septorhinoplasty. The health utility gains after surgery were combined with cost data for the procedure and used to calculate a 0.04 increase in quality-adjusted life years (QALY).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Cost Utility Analysis of Costal Cartilage Autografts and Human Cadaveric Allografts in Rhinoplasty

Starr

Creel

Harryman

et al. 2021

Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Human cadaveric allograft (HCA) and costal cartilage autograft (CCA) have been described for reconstruction during rhinoplasty. Neither are ideal due to infection, resorption, and donor site morbidity. The clear superiority of 1 graft over the other has not yet been demonstrated. This study assesses comparative costs associated with current grafting materials to better explore the cost ceiling for a theoretical tissue engineered implant. Materials and methods: A cost utility analysis was performed. Initial procedure costs include physician fees (CPT 30420), hospital outpatient prospective payments, ambulatory surgical center payments, and fees for the following: rib graft (CPT 20910), hospital observation, and DRG (155) for inpatient admission. Additional costs for revision procedure, included the following fees: physician (CPT 30345), rib graft, hospital outpatient prospective payment, and ambulatory surgical center payments. Total costs under each scenario were calculated with and without the revision procedure. Comparison of total costs for each potential outcome to the estimated health utility value allowed for comparison across rhinoplasty subgroups. Results: The mean cost of primary outpatient rhinoplasty using HCA and CCA were $8075 and $8342 respectively. Revision outpatient rhinoplasty averaged $7447 and increased to $8228 if costal cartilage harvest was required. Hospital admission increased the cost of primary rhinoplasty with CCA to $8609 for observational admission and to $13653 for 1 day inpatient admission. Revision CCA rhinoplasty with an inpatient admission complicated by pneumothorax increased costs to $21 099. Conclusion: Cost of rhinoplasty without hospitalization was similar between HCA and CCA and this cost represents the lower limit of a practical cost for an engineered graft. Considering complications such as need for revision or for admission after CCA due to surgical morbidity, the upper limit of cost for an engineered implant would approximately double.

show abstract

Quality of Life Gain After Septorhinoplasty: An Analysis of Health Utility and Cost Utility Values Associated with Septorhinoplasty

Cited by 6 publications

References 24 publications

A Systematic Review of Health State Utility Values in the Plastic Surgery Literature

A Systematic Review of Health State Utility Values in the Plastic Surgery Literature

Welche Qualität macht den Unterschied?

Cost Utility Analysis of Costal Cartilage Autografts and Human Cadaveric Allografts in Rhinoplasty

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About