A literature-based cost-effectiveness analysis of device-assisted suturing versus needle-driven suturing during laparotomy closure
(2025) In Hernia 29(1).- Abstract
Purpose: Small-bites suturing technique for laparotomy closure is now recommended as the standard of care. However, uptake of the practice remains slow. A medical technology called the SutureTOOL has been developed which can facilitate implementation of small-bites. The aim of the study was to compare the economic and clinical outcomes of laparotomy closure for patients using manual needle-driver suturing versus device-assisted suturing (SutureTOOL) following open abdominal surgery. Methods: This cost-effectiveness analysis comparing device-assisted suturing to needle-driver suturing was performed from a healthcare perspective within Sweden, France, the UK, and the US. A decision tree model was developed to implement the analysis.... (More)
Purpose: Small-bites suturing technique for laparotomy closure is now recommended as the standard of care. However, uptake of the practice remains slow. A medical technology called the SutureTOOL has been developed which can facilitate implementation of small-bites. The aim of the study was to compare the economic and clinical outcomes of laparotomy closure for patients using manual needle-driver suturing versus device-assisted suturing (SutureTOOL) following open abdominal surgery. Methods: This cost-effectiveness analysis comparing device-assisted suturing to needle-driver suturing was performed from a healthcare perspective within Sweden, France, the UK, and the US. A decision tree model was developed to implement the analysis. Results: The SutureTOOL was found to be cost-effective, reducing costs between 22% and 40% across country contexts. Savings were associated with reduced post-operative complications and reductions in operating room time. Improvements in quality of life were minimal and not clinically significant, likely because of the short time horizon. Conclusion: Cost-effectiveness was largely due to cost savings. Prior to procurement, hospitals should test the device to ensure that small-bite rates and reductions in operation time are replicable within their clinical context. If so, the device will improve quality of care for laparotomy wound closure.
(Less)
- author
- Lwin, Zin Min Thet ; Börner, Gabriel LU ; Verheij-Engqvist, Sophia and Keel, George
- organization
- publishing date
- 2025-12
- type
- Contribution to journal
- publication status
- published
- subject
- keywords
- Cost-effectiveness analysis, Laparotomy, Surgical equipment, Sutures
- in
- Hernia
- volume
- 29
- issue
- 1
- article number
- 77
- publisher
- Springer
- external identifiers
-
- scopus:85216608206
- pmid:39847140
- ISSN
- 1265-4906
- DOI
- 10.1007/s10029-025-03266-2
- language
- English
- LU publication?
- yes
- id
- bccb3417-ba87-43d5-b6a7-531a04014f5e
- date added to LUP
- 2025-04-01 15:31:16
- date last changed
- 2025-07-08 23:28:57
@article{bccb3417-ba87-43d5-b6a7-531a04014f5e,
abstract = {{<p>Purpose: Small-bites suturing technique for laparotomy closure is now recommended as the standard of care. However, uptake of the practice remains slow. A medical technology called the SutureTOOL has been developed which can facilitate implementation of small-bites. The aim of the study was to compare the economic and clinical outcomes of laparotomy closure for patients using manual needle-driver suturing versus device-assisted suturing (SutureTOOL) following open abdominal surgery. Methods: This cost-effectiveness analysis comparing device-assisted suturing to needle-driver suturing was performed from a healthcare perspective within Sweden, France, the UK, and the US. A decision tree model was developed to implement the analysis. Results: The SutureTOOL was found to be cost-effective, reducing costs between 22% and 40% across country contexts. Savings were associated with reduced post-operative complications and reductions in operating room time. Improvements in quality of life were minimal and not clinically significant, likely because of the short time horizon. Conclusion: Cost-effectiveness was largely due to cost savings. Prior to procurement, hospitals should test the device to ensure that small-bite rates and reductions in operation time are replicable within their clinical context. If so, the device will improve quality of care for laparotomy wound closure.</p>}},
author = {{Lwin, Zin Min Thet and Börner, Gabriel and Verheij-Engqvist, Sophia and Keel, George}},
issn = {{1265-4906}},
keywords = {{Cost-effectiveness analysis; Laparotomy; Surgical equipment; Sutures}},
language = {{eng}},
number = {{1}},
publisher = {{Springer}},
series = {{Hernia}},
title = {{A literature-based cost-effectiveness analysis of device-assisted suturing versus needle-driven suturing during laparotomy closure}},
url = {{http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10029-025-03266-2}},
doi = {{10.1007/s10029-025-03266-2}},
volume = {{29}},
year = {{2025}},
}