Background: Laparoscopic peritoneal lavage is an alternative to sigmoid resection in selected patients presenting with purulent peritonitis from perforated diverticulitis. Although recent trials have lacked superiority for lavage in terms of morbidity, mortality was not compromised, and beneficial secondary outcomes were shown. These included shorter duration of surgery, less stoma formation and less surgical reintervention (including stoma reversal) for laparoscopic lavage versus sigmoid resection respectively. The cost analysis of laparoscopic lavage for perforated diverticulitis in the Ladies RCT was assessed in the present study. Methods: This study involved an economic evaluation of the randomized LOLA (LaparOscopic LAvage) arm of the Ladies trial (comparing laparoscopic lavage with sigmoid resection in patients with purulent peritonitis due to perforated diverticulitis). The actual resource use per individual patient was documented prospectively and analysed (according to intention-to-treat) for up to 1 year after randomization. Results: Eighty-eight patients were randomized to either laparoscopic lavage (46) or sigmoid resection (42). The total medical costs for lavage were lower (mean difference € − 3512, 95 per cent bias-corrected and accelerated c.i. −16 020 to 8149). Surgical reintervention increased costs in the lavage group, whereas stoma reversal increased costs in the sigmoid resection group. Differences in favour of laparoscopy were robust when costs were varied by ±20 per cent in a sensitivity analysis (mean cost difference € − 2509 to −4438). Conclusion: Laparoscopic lavage for perforated diverticulitis is more cost-effective than sigmoid resection.

Additional Metadata
Persistent URL dx.doi.org/10.1002/bjs.10329, hdl.handle.net/1765/95311
Journal British Journal of Surgery
Citation
Vennix, S, Van Dieren, S, Opmeer, B.C, Lange, J.F, & Bemelman, W.A. (2017). Cost analysis of laparoscopic lavage compared with sigmoid resection for perforated diverticulitis in the Ladies trial. British Journal of Surgery, 104(1), 62–68. doi:10.1002/bjs.10329