M Granberg1, A Strandell, J Thorburn, S Daya, M Wikland. 1. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Sahlgrenska University Hospital, Gothenburg, Sweden. maria.simon-granberg@telia.com
Abstract
PURPOSE: The number of published studies comparing cost-effectiveness of tubal surgery and IVF treatment is limited, in part because of the difficulties of conducting randomized trials, given that IVF is now a clinically accepted treatment and the decision to offer surgery or IVF is often dictated by the severity of the tubal disease and by the availability of the methods. The aim of this study was to compare the costs of our policy of offering tubal surgery to patients with mild or moderate tubal disease with the cost of offering IVF to these and severe tubal disease. METHODS: In this retrospective cohort study patients with tubal pathology as the sole reason for their infertility were included: 61 patients in the tubal surgery group and 464 patients in the IVF group. The delivery rates and costs per delivery were compared. RESULTS: Delivery rates were 28% in the tubal surgery group within 2 years of follow-up and 52% in the IVF group that involved up to three cycles of treatment. This economic evaluation demonstrated only small differences in the average cost when considering the cost per delivery. CONCLUSIONS: With a policy involving strict selection of patients, tubal surgery will continue to have a role in the treatment of infertility.
PURPOSE: The number of published studies comparing cost-effectiveness of tubal surgery and IVF treatment is limited, in part because of the difficulties of conducting randomized trials, given that IVF is now a clinically accepted treatment and the decision to offer surgery or IVF is often dictated by the severity of the tubal disease and by the availability of the methods. The aim of this study was to compare the costs of our policy of offering tubal surgery to patients with mild or moderate tubal disease with the cost of offering IVF to these and severe tubal disease. METHODS: In this retrospective cohort study patients with tubal pathology as the sole reason for their infertility were included: 61 patients in the tubal surgery group and 464 patients in the IVF group. The delivery rates and costs per delivery were compared. RESULTS: Delivery rates were 28% in the tubal surgery group within 2 years of follow-up and 52% in the IVF group that involved up to three cycles of treatment. This economic evaluation demonstrated only small differences in the average cost when considering the cost per delivery. CONCLUSIONS: With a policy involving strict selection of patients, tubal surgery will continue to have a role in the treatment of infertility.