Skip to main content
Open access
Research Article
23 February 2024

PEG hydrogel sealant versus fibrin glue in posterior fossa surgery: an economic comparison across five European countries

Abstract

Aim: Posterior cranial fossa (PCF) surgery is associated with complications, including cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) leakage. Dural sealants such as polyethylene glycol (PEG)-based hydrogels and fibrin glue can prevent CSF leaks, with evidence suggesting PEG hydrogels may outperform fibrin glue. However, the budget impact of using PEG hydrogels in PCF surgeries in Europe is unclear. Materials & methods: A decision tree was developed based on a previous US model, to assess the budget impact of switching from fibrin glue to PEG hydrogel in PCF surgery across five European countries. Input costs were derived from published sources for the financial year 2022/2023. Health outcomes, including CSF leaks, were considered. Results: The model predicted that using PEG hydrogel instead of fibrin glue in PCF surgery can lead to cost savings in five European countries. Cost savings per patient ranged from EUR 419 to EUR 1279, depending on the country. Sensitivity analysis showed that the incidence of CSF leaks and pseudomeningoceles had a substantial impact on the model's results. Conclusion: PEG hydrogels may be a cost-effective alternative to fibrin glue in PCF surgery. The model predicted that cost savings would be mainly driven by a reduction in the incidence of postoperative CSF leaks, resulting in reduced reliance on lumbar drains, reparative surgery and shortened hospital stays.

Formats available

You can view the full content in the following formats:

References

Papers of special note have been highlighted as: • of interest; •• of considerable interest
1.
Grønbæk JK, Toescu S, Frič R et al. Postoperative speech impairment and cranial nerve deficits after secondary surgery of posterior fossa tumors in childhood: a prospective European multicentre study. Childs Nerv. Syst. 38(4), 747–758 (2022).
2.
Brell M, Ibáñez J, Caral L, Ferrer E. Factors influencing surgical complications of intra-axial brain tumors. Acta Neurochirurg. 142(7), 739–750 (2000).
3.
Lonjaret L, Guyonnet M, Berard E et al. Postoperative complications after craniotomy for brain tumor surgery. Anaesth. Crit. Care Pain Med. 36(4), 213–218 (2017).
4.
Legnani FG, Saladino A, Casali C et al. Craniotomy vs. craniectomy for posterior fossa tumors: a prospective study to evaluate complications after surgery. Acta Neurochirurg. 155(12), 2281–2286 (2013).
5.
Dubey A, Sung W-S, Shaya M et al. Complications of posterior cranial fossa surgery--an institutional experience of 500 patients. Surg. Neurol. 72(4), 369–375 (2009).
6.
Hadanny A, Rozovski U, Nossek E et al. Craniectomy versus craniotomy for posterior fossa metastases: complication profile. World Neurosurg. 89, 193–198 (2016).
7.
Slot EMH, van Baarsen KM, Hoving EW, Zuithoff NPA, van Doormaal TPC. Cerebrospinal fluid leakage after cranial surgery in the pediatric population-a systematic review and meta-analysis. Childs Nerv. Syst. 37(5), 1439–1447 (2021).
8.
Sastry RA, Walek K, Leary OP et al. Incidence, characteristics, and outcomes of pseudomeningocele and cerebrospinal fluid fistula after posterior fossa surgery. World Neurosurg. 164, e1094–e1102 (2022).
9.
Fuentes AM, Chiu RG, Nie J, Mehta AI. Inpatient outcomes of posterior fossa decompression with or without duraplasty for Chiari malformation type I. Clin. Neurol. Neurosurg. 207, 106757 (2021).
10.
Gürbüz MS, Berkman MZ, Ünal E et al. Foramen magnum decompression and duraplasty is superior to only foramen magnum decompression in Chiari malformation Type 1 associated with syringomyelia in adults. Asian Spine J. 9(5), 721–727 (2015).
11.
Hoffman H, Bunch KM, Paul T, Krishnamurthy S. Comparison of pericranial autograft and AlloDerm for duraplasty in patients with Type I Chiari malformation: retrospective cohort analysis. Oper. Neurosurg. 21(6), 386–392 (2021).
12.
Schiariti M, Acerbi F, Broggi M et al. Two alternative dural sealing techniques in posterior fossa surgery: (polylactide-co-glycolide) self-adhesive resorbable membrane versus polyethylene glycol hydrogel. Surg. Neurol. Int. 5, 171 (2014).
• Retrospective, single center study comparing the clinical safety of two alternative dural sealing techniques in posterior cranial fossa (PCF) surgery.
13.
Daudia A, Biswas D, Jones NS. Risk of meningitis with cerebrospinal fluid rhinorrhea. Ann. Otol. Rhinol. Laryngol. 116(12), 902–905 (2007).
14.
Sathaporntheera P, Saetia K. Risk factors associated with CSF leakage and complications after retrosigmoid surgery. Inter. Neurosurg. 22, 100865 (2020).
15.
Sneh-Arbib O, Shiferstein A, Dagan N et al. Surgical site infections following craniotomy focusing on possible post-operative acquisition of infection: prospective cohort study. Eur. J. Clin. Microbiol. Infect. Dis. 32(12), 1511–1516 (2013).
16.
van Lieshout C, Slot EMH, Kinaci A et al. Cerebrospinal fluid leakage costs after craniotomy and health economic assessment of incidence reduction from a hospital perspective in The Netherlands. BMJ Open 11(12), e052553 (2021).
• Health-economic assessment from a European referral center (The Netherlands) to estimate the costs of cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) and the value of prevention.
17.
Kinaci A, van Doormaal TPC. Dural sealants for the management of cerebrospinal fluid leakage after intradural surgery: current status and future perspectives. Expert Rev. Med. Devices 16(7), 549–553 (2019).
18.
Kinaci A, Algra A, Heuts S, O'Donnell D, van der Zwan A, van Doormaal T. Effectiveness of dural sealants in prevention of cerebrospinal fluid leakage after craniotomy: a systematic review. World Neurosurg. 118, 368–376.e1 (2018).
• Systematic literature review on the prevention of CSF after PCF surgery comparing sealants and its clinical outcomes.
19.
Biscola NP, Cartarozzi LP, Ulian-Benitez S et al. Multiple uses of fibrin sealant for nervous system treatment following injury and disease. J. Venom Anim. Toxins Incl. Trop. Dis. 23, 13 (2017).
20.
Bhagat V, Becker ML. Degradable adhesives for surgery and tissue engineering. Biomacromolecules 18(10), 3009–3039 (2017).
21.
Than KD, Baird CJ, Olivi A. Polyethylene glycol hydrogel dural sealant may reduce incisional cerebrospinal fluid leak after posterior fossa surgery. Oper. Neurosurg. 63(Suppl. 1), ONS182–ONS187 (2008).
•• Study examining clinical outcomes using polyethylene glycol dural sealants compared with fibrin glue.
22.
Carter MJ. A cost-benefit analysis of using polyethylene glycol hydrogel sealant versus fibrin glue as a dural sealant for posterior fossa surgery in the United States. J. Health Econ. Outcomes Res. 5(2), 125–139 (2018).
•• This budget impact model was built on Carter's model for the US and adapted to the European setting.
23.
Caro JJ, Briggs AH, Siebert U, Kuntz KM. Modeling good research practices--overview: a report of the ISPOR-SMDM Modeling Good Research Practices Task Force--1. Value Health 15(6), 796–803 (2012).
24.
Husereau D, Drummond M, Augustovski F et al. Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) 2022 explanation and elaboration: a report of the ISPOR CHEERS II Good Practices Task Force. Value Health 25(1), 10–31 (2022).
25.
Kshettry VR, Lobo B, Lim J, Sade B, Oya S, Lee JH. Evaluation of non-watertight dural reconstruction with collagen matrix onlay graft in posterior fossa surgery. J. Korean Neurosurg. Soc. 59(1), 52–57 (2016).
29.
Haute Autorité de Santé. Tarifs MCO et HAD 2020 (2022). https://www.atih.sante.fr/tarifs-mco-et-had
31.
Piek J, Weber C, Kundt G et al. Pharmacoeconomical consequences of postoperative CSF leaks after intracranial surgery--a prospective analysis. J. Neurol. Surg. A Cent. Eur. Neurosurg. 73(1), 25–28 (2012).
32.
Remunerazione prestazioni di assistenza ospedaliera per acuti, assistenza ospedaliera di riabilitazione e di lungodegenza post acuzie e di assistenza specialistica ambulatoriale. In: Gazzetta Ufficiale della Repubblica Italiana (Ministero della Salute, Rome). GU Serie Generale n.23 del 28-01-2013 - Suppl. Ordinario n. 8. 1–64 (2012).
33.
Agenzia Italiana del Farmaco. Liste di trasparenza (2022). https://www.aifa.gov.it/liste-di-trasparenza