Advertisement

Contributions of Adhesions to the Cost of Healthcare

  • Isay Moscowitz
  • Steven D. Wexner

Abstract

Postoperative abdominal adhesions are associated with numerous complications, including small-bowel obstruction, 1 difficult and dangerous reoperations, infertility, and chronic pain.2–5 The healthcare industry has changed dramatically in the past decade. Historically, quality of care was the primary determinant of change in healthcare; however, cost has become a major motivating force in clinical decision making. Despite continued efforts to optimize outcomes, adverse sequelae ensue in all aspects of medicine and surgery. As technology advances, new drugs, devices, and procedures spawn new concerns relating to adverse outcomes. The costs of these unwanted effects contribute significantly to the global costs of healthcare.

Keywords

Bowel Obstruction Health Care Financing Sodium Hyaluronate Postoperative Adhesion Peritoneal Adhesion 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Menzies D. Peritoneal adhesions: incidence, cause and prevention. Ann Surg 1992; 24(part l):29–45.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Caspi E, Halpern Y, Bukosky I. The importance of peritoneal adhesions in tubal reconstructive surgery for infertility. Fertil Steril 1979; 31:296–300.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Diamond E. Lysis of postoperative pelvic adhesions in infertility. Fertil Steril 1979; 31:287–295.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Frantzen C, Schlosser HW. Microsurgery and postinfec-tious tubal infertility. Fertil Steril 1982; 38:397–420.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Tulandi T. Salpingo-ovariolysis: a comparison between laser surgery and electrosurgery. Fertil Steril 1986; 45:489–491.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Bryant T. Clinical lectures on intestinal obstruction. Med Times Gazette 1872; 1:363.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Battle WH. Intestinal obstructions coming 4 years after the operation of ovariotomy. Lancet 1883; 1:818.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Vick RM. Statistics of acute intestinal obstruction. Br Med J 1932; 2:546–548.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Waldron GW, Hampton JM. Intestinal obstruction: a half century comparative analysis. Ann Surg 1961; 153:839–850.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    P. Nemir Jr. Intestinal obstruction: ten year survey at the hospital of the University of Pennsylvania. Ann Surg 1952; 135:367–375.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Perry JF, Smith GA, Yonehiro EG. Intestinal obstruction caused by adhesions: a review of 388 cases. Ann Surg 1955; 142:810–816.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Ellis H. The etiology of post-operative abdominal adhesions. An experimental study. Br J Surg 1962; 50:10–16.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Ellis H. The cause and prevention of post-operative intra-peritoneal adhesions. Surg Gynecol Obstet 1971; 133(3):497–511.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Jagelman DG, Ellis H. Starch and intraperitoneal adhesion formation. Br J Surg 1973; 60(2):111–114.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Raf EL. Causes of abdominal adhesions in cases of intestinal obstruction. Act Chir Scand 1969; 135:73.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Myllarniemi H. Foreign material in adhesion formation after abdominal surgery. Acta Chir Scand 1967;(suppl) 377:13–48.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Goldman IL, Rosemond PG. Fluorouracil inhibition of experimental peritoneal adhesions. Am J Surg 1967; 113(4):491–493.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Buckman R, Buckman PD, Hufnagel HV, Gervin AS. A physiological basis for the adhesion-free healing of deperi-tonealized surfaces. J Surg Res 1976; 21(2):67–76.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Buckman R, Woods M, Sargeant I, Gerwin SA. A unifying mechanism in the etiology of intraperitoneal adhesions. J Surg Res 1976; 20(1):1–5.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Raftery TA. Effect of peritoneal trauma on peritoneal fi-brinolytic activity and intraperitoneal adhesion formation. An experimental study in the rat. Eur Surg Res 1981; 13(6):397–401.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Playforth RH, Holloway JB, Griffin WO. Mechanical small bowel obstruction: a plea for early surgical intervention. Ann Surg 1970; 171:783–788.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Laws HL. Management of small bowel obstruction. Am Surg 1978; 44:313–317.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Stewardson RH, Bombeck CT, Nyhus LM. Critical operative management of small bowel obstruction. Ann Surg 1978;189–193.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Munro A, Jones PR Operative intubation in the treatment of complicated small bowel obstruction. BrJ Surg 1978; 65(2):123–127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Menzies D, Ellis H. Intestinal obstruction from adhesions—how big is the problem? Ann R Coll Surg Engl 1990; 72:60–63.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Ray NF, Larsen JW Jr, Stillman RJ, Jacobs RJ. Economic impact of hospitalizations for lower abdominal adhesiolysis in the United States in 1988. Surg Gynecol Obstet 1993; 176(3):271–276.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Ray NF, Denton WG, Thamer M, Henderson SC, Perry S. Abdominal adhesiolysis: inpatient care and expenditures in the United States in 1994. J Am Coll Surg 1998; 186(1):1–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Wiseman D. Polymers for the prevention of surgical adhesions. In: Domb AJ, ed. Polymeric Site-Specific Pharma-cotherapy. New York: Wiley, 1994:370–421.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Beck DE. The role of Seprafilm™bioresorbable membrane in adhesion prevention. Eur J Surg 1997; 7:49–55.Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Becker MJ, Dayton LM, Fazio WV, et al. Prevention of postoperative abdominal adhesions by sodium hyaluronate-based bioresorbable membrane: a prospective, randomized, double-blind multicenter study. J Am Coll Surg 1996; 183:297–306.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Weibel MA, Majno G. Peritoneal adhesions and their relation to abdominal surgery. Am Chir Scand 1969; 135:73–76.Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Ellis H, Parker MC, Menzies D, et al. The surgical impact of adhesions. American Society of Colon and Rectal Surgeons (ASCRS) 97th Annual Convention, 1998, San Antonio, TX, Abstract C75.Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Scott-Coombes DM, Thompson JN, Vipond MN. General surgeon’s attitudes to the treatment and prevention of abdominal surgery. Am J Surg 1973; 126:345–353.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Holmdahl L, Risberg B. Adhesions: prevention and complications in general surgery. Eur J Surg 1997; 163:169–174.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Ivarsson ML, Holmdahl L, Franzjen G, Reisberg B. Cost of bowel obstruction resulting from adhesions. Eur J Surg 1997; 163(9):679–684.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Health Care Financing Administration. MEDPAR Database www.hcfa.gov/stats/medpar/medpar.htm www.hcfa.gov/stats/medpar/medpar.htm 1990-1996.Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Malcolm W. The surgical impact of adhesions. The surgical and clinical adhesions research study (SCAR). Abstract presented at the annual scientific meeting of Association of Surgeons of Great Britain and Ireland (ASGBI), 13th–15th May, Scotland, 1998.Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    McGuire A. The economic impact of post-operative adhesions. In: Clinical and epidemiological perspectives on post-operative adhesions. Abstract presented at the annual scientific meeting of Association of Surgeons of Great Britain and Ireland (ASGBI), 13th–15th May, Scotland, 1998.Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Moran BJ. The workload from adhesions in re-operative surgery. In: Clinical and epidemiological perspectives on post-operative adhesions. Abstract presented at the annual scientific meeting of Association of Surgeons of Great Britain and Ireland, 13th–15th May, Scotland, 1998.Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    van Goor H. Complications in re-operated patients. Prevention and treatment of adhesive complications in colorectal surgery. Abstract presented at the International Society of University Colon and Rectal Surgeons (ISURS). XVIIth Biennial Congress, 7th–11th June, Malmo, Sweden, 1998.Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Wexner S, Beck D, Seprafilm® Compassionate Use Study Group. Clinical resolution of life-threatening recurrent adhesive disease by Seprafilm®: a compassionate use treatment series (Abstract). Dis Colon Rectum 1998; 41:A58.Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Salum M, Weiss EG, Nogueras JJ, Wexner SD. Early obstructive and septic complications with hyaluronate-based membrane in colorectal surgery (Abstract). Dis Colon Rectum 1998; 41:A45.Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Salum MR, Batista O, Baig MK, et al. Does the sodium hyaluronate and carboxymethylcellulose membrane (HCM) reduce the incidence and/or severity of small bowel obstruction (SBO)? (Abstract) Colorectal Disease 1999; 1(suppl 1):59.Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    Moreira H Jr, Yamaguchi T, Choi J, Sardinha C, Billoti V, Wexner S. Safety of sodium hyaluronate-based membrane (Seprafilm™) after bowel injury: a prospective randomized trial (Abstract). Dis Colon Rectum 1998; 41:A6.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2000

Authors and Affiliations

  • Isay Moscowitz
  • Steven D. Wexner

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations