[Economic evaluation of medical devices not included in the French list of products and services qualifying for reimbursement: Example of biologic meshes]. / Impact économique à l'hôpital de dispositifs médicaux non remboursés en sus des GHS : exemple des prothèses de renfort biologiques.

OBJECTIVES: To present a method aimed to evaluate the economic impact associated with the use of medical devices (DM) not reimbursed in addition to diagnosis related groups (DRGs) tariffs using the example of biological meshes for parietal reinforcement. METHODS: In this multicenter retrospective cohort study, we included all patients who received a biological mesh between January 2010-April 2014 (University hospitals of Saint-Étienne, France) or between January 2010-March 2015 (Lyon University hospitals, France). Measured costs associated with biologic meshes were compared to those of the "Étude nationale des coûts à méthodologie commune" (2012) to weigh the economic impact of biologic meshes with the French DRGs costs. We also compared these costs to the fares perceived by the hospital from the French sickness fund (GHS). RESULTS: Thirty-six patients received a biological mesh and were treated by a total of 38 biological meshes. Of these, the implant was Protexa®, Permacol® and Strattice® in 66%, 29% and 5% of cases respectively. The hospitals incomes were 10,496±5562€ per stay. Meshes-related expenditures represented in average 28% of DRGs costs and 38% of GHS tariffs. The mean additional cost for biological meshes was 3793±2292 euros compared to the mean cost on implantable medical devices in the French DRGs. CONCLUSION: Given their currently restricted use, the hospital budget impact of biological meshes remains limited although the incremental cost per patient is substantial. Analytic costs data can be useful within the scope of decision-making related to DM not refunded by the French health system.

Xenograft biologic mesh in parietal and general surgery: Technical assessment and review of clinical effectiveness and safety data.

STUDY AIM: To describe the main technical characteristics of biologic prostheses used for parietal reinforcement and to present the state of the art on their risk/benefit ratio. METHODS: We conducted a technical analysis of manufacturer specifications of the biologic prostheses that are currently available in France accompanied by a literature review by selecting meta-analyses and systematic reviews, randomized controlled trials and publications of health technology rating agencies. RESULTS: Biological implants for parietal reinforcement are mainly intended for use in a contaminated environment where the use of synthetic prostheses is contra-indicated. We identified fourteen systematic reviews and meta-analyses and one randomized controlled trial. Six ongoing clinical trials were identified as well as two clinical trials that had been interrupted. In the current state of knowledge, there are no high-level evidence data on the therapeutic contribution of biologic prostheses that allow prioritization of the various biologic prostheses according to their characteristics or their different manufacturing processes. CONCLUSION: Pending the results of current randomized controlled trials to validate the indications and an eventual specific reimbursement, indications for the use of biologic parietal reinforcement prostheses seems to be limited to rare clinical situations and only after collegial discussion.