{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.03277931671283472, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0110803324099723, 'mean_word_length': 5.92332268370607, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
The Economic Impact of Closed-Incision Negative-Pressure Therapy in High-Risk Abdominal Incisions: A Cost-Utility Analysis

Background: Complex abdominal wall reconstruction is beset by postoperative complications. A recent meta-analysis comparing the use of closed-incision negative-pressure therapy to standard dressings found a statistically significant reduction in surgical-site infection. The use of closed-incision negative-pressure therapy is gaining acceptance in this population; however, the economic impact of this innovative dressing remains unknown. In this study, a cost-utility analysis was performed assessing closed-incision negative-pressure therapy and standard dressings following closure of abdominal incisions in high-risk patients. Methods: Cost-utility methodology involved reviewing literature related to closed-incision negative-pressure therapy in abdominal wall surgery, obtaining utility estimates to calculate quality-adjusted life-year scores for successful surgery and surgery complicated by surgical-site infection, summing costs using Medicare Current Procedural Terminology codes, and creating a decision tree illuminating the most cost-effective dressing strategy. One-way sensitivity analysis was performed to assess the robustness of the results. Results: The aforementioned meta-analysis comparing closed-incision negative-pressure therapy to standard dressings included a subset of five studies assessing abdominal wall surgery in 829 patients (260 closed-incision negative-pressure therapy and 569 standard dressings). Decision tree analysis revealed an estimated savings of $1546.52 and a gain of 0.0024 quality-adjusted life-year with closed-incision negative-pressure therapy compared with standard dressings; therefore, closed-incision negative-pressure therapy is a dominant treatment strategy. One-way sensitivity analysis revealed that closed-incision negative-pressure therapy is a cost-effective option when the surgical-site infection rate is greater than 16.39 percent. Conclusion: The use of closed-incision negative-pressure therapy is cost-saving following closure of abdominal incisions in high-risk patients.