The cost of failure: The economic impact of failed primary closure in classic bladder exstrophy

• Published in: Journal of pediatric surgery 2016-08, Vol.51 (8), p.1312-1316
• Main Authors: Hesh, Christopher A, Young, Ezekiel, Intihar, Paul, Gearhart, John P
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: Bladder exstrophy; Bladder Exstrophy - economics; Bladder Exstrophy - surgery; Cost of Illness; Costs; Fees, Medical; Female; Hospital Charges; Hospital Costs; Humans; Infant; Infant, Newborn; Male; Pediatric urology; Pediatrics; Retrospective Studies; Surgery; Treatment Failure; Urinary Bladder - surgery; Urologic Surgical Procedures - adverse effects; Urologic Surgical Procedures - economics
• ISSN: 0022-3468; 1531-5037
• DOI: 10.1016/j.jpedsurg.2015.11.011

Abstract Purpose Failure of primary closure in classic bladder exstrophy (CBE) is a significant cause of morbidity, and yet its relative economic impact has not been well characterized. The authors aim to determine whether CBE patients who underwent failed primary closure incur greater economic burden in the year following their successful closure than those patients who underwent a successful primary closure. Materials and Methods After institutional review board approval CBE patients who were successfully closed between 1993 and 2013 were identified in an institutional exstrophy–epispadias database. Patients who were never closed at the study institution and those who had no documented successful closure were excluded. Inpatient hospital charges, hospital costs, and professional fees were collected for the year following successful closure. Results 162 patients met the inclusion and exclusion criteria and accounted for 312 inpatient admissions in the year following and including their respective successful bladder closures. 62 of the patients failed their primary closure and the remaining 100 succeeded. Adjusting for covariates, patients who underwent successful primary closure experienced a reduction in inpatient hospital charges of $8497, hospital costs of $9046 and professional fees of $11,180 in the year following their successful closure compared to those patients who failed their primary closure. Conclusion Apart from the self-evident financial advantages of a successful primary closure, namely the avoidance of reclosure, there appears to be a lasting negative financial impact of failed primary closure even after these patients undergo successful reclosure at the study institution.