RESUMO
BACKGROUND: The objective of this research was to conduct a systematic review and cost analysis to summarize, from the Ministry of Health perspective, the costs families might incur because of their child's prescription for refractive errors and amblyopia correction. METHODS: Databases including MEDLINE, Embase, BIOSIS, CINAHL, HEED, ISI Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library as well as the gray literature were searched. Systematic review was conducted using EPPI-Reviewer 4. Percentage difference in cost of glasses and patches per patient per various diagnoses were computed. The cost of glasses and patches was projected over a 5-year time horizon. Cost-utility analysis was performed. RESULTS: In total, 302 records were retrieved from multiple databases and an additional 48 records were identified through gray literature search. From these, a total of 14 studies (10,388 subjects) were eligible for quantitative analysis. The cost of glasses increased significantly for congenital cataract patients to US$1,820, esotropia patients to US$840, myopes to US$411, amblyopes (mixed) to US$916, anisometropes to US$521, and patients with strabismus to US$728 over a 5-year period making them unaffordable for low-income families. Incremental cost of glasses of congenital cataract patients with delayed treatment was computed to be US$1,690 per health utility gained. Incremental cost of glasses for high refractive error was US$93 per health utility gained in non-compliant children. For amblyopia patients, incremental cost of glasses per quality-adjusted life years gained was US$3,638. CONCLUSION: Cost of corrective lenses is associated with significant financial burden and thus other means of mitigating costs should be considered. Eyesight problems in children are perceived as low-priority health needs. Thus, educational interventions on substantial visual deficits of not wearing glasses should be offered to families and governmental health agencies.
RESUMO
PURPOSE: To determine conformability of stent-grafts in endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) using centerline of flow measurements and to compare conformability in patients with severe aortoiliac tortuosity. METHODS: From 2012 to 2013, 111 consecutive patients (98 men; mean age 75.4±7.7 years) underwent endovascular aneurysm repair with Endurant I and II and Zenith Flex, LP, and Spiral Z stent-grafts; their pre- and post-EVAR computed tomography (CT) studies were retrospectively analyzed using quantitative 3-dimensional imaging software. The length between the lowest renal artery and the iliac bifurcation was measured using centerline of flow and was defined as the treatment length (TL). The difference in TLs pre and post EVAR were compared as a surrogate to evaluate endograft conformability. RESULTS: A total of 203 pre and post EVAR aortoiliac TLs were measured (99 Endurant I, 20 Endurant II, 32 Flex, 6 LP, and 42 Spiral Z). Overall, there was a mean difference of 5.0±7.3 mm or 2.6%±3.9% between the pre- and post-EVAR TLs (p<0.001). No statistically significant difference in TLs was observed among the various stent-grafts (p=0.115). In 40 patients with severe aortoiliac tortuosity, the post-EVAR TL was 16.2±5.5 mm or 8.0%±2.7% shorter than the pre-EVAR TL (p<0.001); again, there was no difference in TLs among the various devices implanted (p=0.737). CONCLUSION: Overall, there was no difference in treatment lengths before and after EVAR among different stent-grafts, suggesting similar conformability. Interestingly, patients with severe aortoiliac tortuosity were found to have significantly shorter post-EVAR treatment lengths compared to before EVAR, which should be considered when planning EVAR.
