OBJECTIVES: To compare the cost effectiveness of laparoscopic versus open colposuspension for the treatment of female urinary stress incontinence. DESIGN: Cost utility analysis alongside a randomised controlled trial. SETTING:Six gynaecological surgical centres within the UK. POPULATION/SAMPLE: Women with proven stress urinary incontinence requiring surgery. METHODS:Open abdominal retropubic colposuspension or laparoscopic colposuspension carried out by experienced surgeons. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Cost, measured in pounds sterling and generic health-related quality of life, measured using the EQ-5D. The latter was used to estimate patient-specific quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). RESULTS: Healthcare resource use over 6-month follow up translated into costs of pound 1805 for the laparoscopic arm and pound 1433 for the open arm (differential mean cost pound 372; 95% credibility interval [CrI]: 274-471). At 6 months, QALYs were slightly higher in the laparoscopic arm relative to the open arm (0.005; 95% CrI: -0.012 to 0.023). Therefore, the cost of each extra QALY in the laparoscopic group (the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio [ICER]) was pound 74,400 at 6 months. At 24 months, the laparoscopic arm again had a higher mean QALY score compared to the open surgery group. Thus, assuming that beyond 6 months the laparoscopic colposuspension would not lead to any significant additional costs compared with open colposuspension, the ICER was reduced to pound 9300 at 24 months. Extensive sensitivity analyses were carried out to test assumptions made in the base case scenario. CONCLUSIONS:Laparoscopic colposuspension is not cost effective when compared with open colposuspension during the first 6 months following surgery, but it may be cost effective over 24 months.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVES: To compare the cost effectiveness of laparoscopic versus open colposuspension for the treatment of female urinary stress incontinence. DESIGN: Cost utility analysis alongside a randomised controlled trial. SETTING: Six gynaecological surgical centres within the UK. POPULATION/SAMPLE: Women with proven stress urinary incontinence requiring surgery. METHODS: Open abdominal retropubic colposuspension or laparoscopic colposuspension carried out by experienced surgeons. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Cost, measured in pounds sterling and generic health-related quality of life, measured using the EQ-5D. The latter was used to estimate patient-specific quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). RESULTS: Healthcare resource use over 6-month follow up translated into costs of pound 1805 for the laparoscopic arm and pound 1433 for the open arm (differential mean cost pound 372; 95% credibility interval [CrI]: 274-471). At 6 months, QALYs were slightly higher in the laparoscopic arm relative to the open arm (0.005; 95% CrI: -0.012 to 0.023). Therefore, the cost of each extra QALY in the laparoscopic group (the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio [ICER]) was pound 74,400 at 6 months. At 24 months, the laparoscopic arm again had a higher mean QALY score compared to the open surgery group. Thus, assuming that beyond 6 months the laparoscopic colposuspension would not lead to any significant additional costs compared with open colposuspension, the ICER was reduced to pound 9300 at 24 months. Extensive sensitivity analyses were carried out to test assumptions made in the base case scenario. CONCLUSIONS: Laparoscopic colposuspension is not cost effective when compared with open colposuspension during the first 6 months following surgery, but it may be cost effective over 24 months.
Authors: William Hollingworth; Jonathan D Campbell; Jonathan Kowalski; Arliene Ravelo; Isabelle Girod; Andrew Briggs; Sean D Sullivan Journal: Qual Life Res Date: 2010-01-22 Impact factor: 4.147
Authors: Mehdi Javanbakht; Eoin Moloney; Miriam Brazzelli; Sheila Wallace; Muhammad Imran Omar; Ash Monga; Lucky Saraswat; Phil Mackie; Mari Imamura; Jemma Hudson; Michal Shimonovich; Graeme MacLennan; Luke Vale; Dawn Craig Journal: Syst Rev Date: 2020-04-20
Authors: G Ghoniem; E Stanford; K Kenton; C Achtari; R Goldberg; T Mascarenhas; M Parekh; K Tamussino; S Tosson; G Lose; E Petri Journal: Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct Date: 2007-11-17