OBJECTIVE: To assess the cost effectiveness of laparoscopic hysterectomy compared with conventional hysterectomy (abdominal or vaginal). DESIGN: Cost effectiveness analysis based on two parallel trials: laparoscopic (n = 324) compared with vaginal hysterectomy (n = 163); and laparoscopic (n = 573) compared with abdominal hysterectomy (n = 286). PARTICIPANTS: 1346 women requiring a hysterectomy for reasons other than malignancy. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: One year costs estimated from NHS perspective. Health outcomes expressed in terms of QALYs based on women's responses to the EQ-5D at baseline and at three points during up to 52 weeks' follow up. RESULTS:Laparoscopic hysterectomy cost an average of 401 pounds sterling (708 dollars; 571 euros) more (95% confidence interval 271 pounds sterling to 542 pounds sterling) than vaginal hysterectomy but produced little difference in mean QALYs (0.0015, -0.015 to 0.018). Mean differences in cost and QALYs generated an incremental cost per QALY gained of 267 333 pounds sterling (471 789 dollars; 380 437 euros). The probability that laparoscopic hysterectomy is cost effective was below 50% for a large range of values of willingness to pay for an additional QALY. Laparoscopic hysterectomy cost an average of 186 pounds sterling (328 dollars; 265 euros) more than abdominal hysterectomy, although 95% confidence intervals crossed zero (-26 pounds sterling to 375 pounds sterling); there was little difference in mean QALYs (0.007, -0.008 to 0.023), resulting in an incremental cost per QALY gained of 26 571 pounds sterling (46 893 dollars; 37 813 euros). If the NHS is willing to pay 30 000 pounds sterling for an additional QALY, the probability that laparoscopic hysterectomy is cost effective is 56%. CONCLUSIONS:Laparoscopic hysterectomy is not cost effective relative to vaginal hysterectomy. Its cost effectiveness relative to the abdominal procedure is finely balanced.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVE: To assess the cost effectiveness of laparoscopic hysterectomy compared with conventional hysterectomy (abdominal or vaginal). DESIGN: Cost effectiveness analysis based on two parallel trials: laparoscopic (n = 324) compared with vaginal hysterectomy (n = 163); and laparoscopic (n = 573) compared with abdominal hysterectomy (n = 286). PARTICIPANTS: 1346 women requiring a hysterectomy for reasons other than malignancy. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: One year costs estimated from NHS perspective. Health outcomes expressed in terms of QALYs based on women's responses to the EQ-5D at baseline and at three points during up to 52 weeks' follow up. RESULTS: Laparoscopic hysterectomy cost an average of 401 pounds sterling (708 dollars; 571 euros) more (95% confidence interval 271 pounds sterling to 542 pounds sterling) than vaginal hysterectomy but produced little difference in mean QALYs (0.0015, -0.015 to 0.018). Mean differences in cost and QALYs generated an incremental cost per QALY gained of 267 333 pounds sterling (471 789 dollars; 380 437 euros). The probability that laparoscopic hysterectomy is cost effective was below 50% for a large range of values of willingness to pay for an additional QALY. Laparoscopic hysterectomy cost an average of 186 pounds sterling (328 dollars; 265 euros) more than abdominal hysterectomy, although 95% confidence intervals crossed zero (-26 pounds sterling to 375 pounds sterling); there was little difference in mean QALYs (0.007, -0.008 to 0.023), resulting in an incremental cost per QALY gained of 26 571 pounds sterling (46 893 dollars; 37 813 euros). If the NHS is willing to pay 30 000 pounds sterling for an additional QALY, the probability that laparoscopic hysterectomy is cost effective is 56%. CONCLUSIONS: Laparoscopic hysterectomy is not cost effective relative to vaginal hysterectomy. Its cost effectiveness relative to the abdominal procedure is finely balanced.
Authors: M A Lumsden; S Twaddle; R Hawthorn; I Traynor; D Gilmore; J Davis; M Deeny; I T Cameron; J J Walker Journal: BJOG Date: 2000-11 Impact factor: 6.531
Authors: Petra F Janssen; Hans A M Brölmann; Paul J M van Kesteren; Marlies Y Bongers; Andreas L Thurkow; Martijn W Heymans; Judith A F Huirne Journal: Surg Endosc Date: 2012-04-27 Impact factor: 4.584
Authors: Jason D Wright; Rosa R Cui; Anqi Wang; Ling Chen; Ana I Tergas; William M Burke; Cande V Ananth; June Y Hou; Alfred I Neugut; Sarah M Temkin; Y Claire Wang; Dawn L Hershman Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2015-10-08 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: Johanna W M Aarts; Theodoor E Nieboer; Neil Johnson; Emma Tavender; Ray Garry; Ben Willem J Mol; Kirsten B Kluivers Journal: Cochrane Database Syst Rev Date: 2015-08-12
Authors: Claudia B M Bijen; Justine M Briët; Geertruida H de Bock; Henriëtte J G Arts; Johanna A Bergsma-Kadijk; Marian J E Mourits Journal: BMC Cancer Date: 2009-01-15 Impact factor: 4.430