OJOG  Vol.3 No.8 , October 2013
Cost-effectiveness analysis comparing robotic sacrocolpopexy to a vaginal mesh hysteropexy for treatment of uterovaginal prolapse
ABSTRACT

Objective: To compare costs and QoL associated with 2 minimally invasive operations to treat uterovaginal prolapse. Study Design: A decision analytic cost-effectiveness model comparing vaginal mesh hysteropexy to robotic-assisted sacrocolpopexy. Costs were derived from a hospital perspective. QoL estimates focused on: recurrent prolapse; erosion; infection; transfusion; cystotomy; chronic pain; lower urinary tract symptoms; and mortality. Actual procedural costs at our institution were calculated. Costs and quality adjusted life years were examined over 1 year. Results: The costs ($21,853) and QALYs (0.9645) for robotic sacrocolpopexy produced a CE Ratio of $22,657 per QALY. The costs ($14,890) and QALYs (0.9309) for vaginal mesh produced a CE Ratio of $15,995 per QALY. The incremental cost per QALYs for robotic surgery was $207,232. Sensitivity analysis on all utilities, cost estimates, and complication estimates didn’t cross any thresholds. Conclusion: Vaginal mesh was more cost-effective than robotic sacrocolpopexy even when the cost of the robot was not factored.


Cite this paper
Culligan, P. , Salamon, C. , Lewis, C. and Abell, T. (2013) Cost-effectiveness analysis comparing robotic sacrocolpopexy to a vaginal mesh hysteropexy for treatment of uterovaginal prolapse. Open Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology, 3, 613-620. doi: 10.4236/ojog.2013.38110.
References
[1]   FDA Update (2011) Urogynecologic surgical mesh: Update on the safety and effectiveness of transvaginal placement for pelvic organ prolapse.

[2]   Parker, W.H., Broder, M.S., Liu, Z., Shoupe, D., Farquhar, C., et al. (2005) Ovarian conservation at the time of hysterectomy for benign disease. Obstetrics & Gynecology, 106, 219-226.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/01.AOG.0000167394.38215.56

[3]   Culligan, J., Murphy, M., Blackwell, L., Hammons, G., Graham, C., et al. (2002) Long-term success of abdominal sacral colpopexy using synthetic mesh. American Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology, 187, 1473-1482. http://dx.doi.org/10.1067/mob.2002.129160

[4]   Shull, B., Capen, C., Riggs, M. and Kuehl, T. (1992) Preoperative and postoperative analysis of site-specific pelvic support defects in 81 women treated with sacrospinous ligament suspension and pelvic reconstruction. American Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology, 166, 1764-1768.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0002-9378(92)91567-T

[5]   Morley, G. and DeLancey, J. (1990) Sacrospinous ligament fixation for eversion of the vagina. American Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology, 162, 295-296. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0002-9378(90)90881-7

[6]   Estrade, J., Agostini, A., Roger, V., Dallay, D., Blanc, B., et al. (2004) Sacrospinous colpopexy complications. Gynecologie Obstetrique & Fertilite, 32, 850-854.

[7]   Geller, E., Siddiqui, N., Wu, J. and Visco, A. (2008) Shortterm outcomes of robotic sacrocolpopexy compared with abdominal sacrocolpopexy. Obstetrics & Gynecology, 112, 1201-1206.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/AOG.0b013e31818ce394

[8]   Hefni, M. and El-Toukhy, T. (2006) Long-term outcome of vaginal sacrospinous colpopexy for marked uterovaginal prolapse. European Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology and Reproductive Biology, 127, 257-263. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ejogrb.2005.11.028

[9]   Tayrac, R., Boileau, L., Fara, J., Monneins, F., Raini, C., et al. (2010) Bilateral anterior sacrospinous ligament suspension associated with a paravaginal repair with mesh: Short-term clinical results of a pilot study. International Urogynecology Journal and Pelvic Floor Dysfunction, 21, 293-298. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00192-009-1036-1

[10]   Boyd, L., Novetsky, A. and Curtin, J. (2010) Effect of surgical volume on route of hysterectomy and short-term morbidity. Obstetrics & Gynecology, 116, 909-915.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/AOG.0b013e3181f395d9

[11]   Culligan, P., Littman, P., Salamon, C., Priestley, J. and Shariati, A. (2010) Evaluation of a transvaginal mesh delivery system for the correction of pelvic organ prolapse: Subjective and objective findings at least 1 year after surgery. American Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology, 203, E1-E6.

[12]   Nygaard, I., McCreery, R., Brubaker, L., Connolly, A., Cundiff, G., et al. (2004) Abdominal sacrocolpopelxy: A comprehensive review. Obstetrics & Gynecology, 104, 805-823.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/01.AOG.0000139514.90897.07

[13]   Withagen, M., Milani, A., Boon, J., Vervest, H. and Vierhout, M. (2011) Trocar-guided mesh compared with conventional vaginal repair in recurrent prolapse. Obstetrics & Gynecology, 117, 242-250.

[14]   Granese, R., Candiani, M., Perino, A., Romano, F. and Cucinella, G. (2009) Laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy in the treatment of vaginal vault prolapse: 8 years experience. European Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology and Reproductive Biology, 146, 227-231. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ejogrb. 2009.06.013

[15]   Neumann, P., Sandberg, E., Bell, C., Stone, P. and Chapman, R. (2000) Are pharmaceuticals cost-effective? A review of the evidence. Health Affairs, 19, 92-109. http://dx.doi.org/10.1377/ hlthaff.19.2.92

 
 
Top