OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to perform a cost-effectiveness analysis comparing the treatment of large leiomyomas by laparoscopic assisted vaginal hysterectomy (LAVH) versus abdominal hysterectomy (AH). STUDY DESIGN: Twenty consecutive LAVH were compared to 20 consecutive AH for leiomyoma > or = 250 g. Hospital costs were obtained through Healthcare cost accounting system. The 6 principles of cost-effectiveness analysis were used. RESULTS: The groups were similar in respect to age, weight, race, medical comorbidities, blood loss, and operative time. Median uterine weight (513 g) was approximately 20% > for LAVH. Length of stay and pain was significantly less for LAVH. Total hospital cost for AH was approximately 12% less expensive ($4394 vs $5023, P = .18). CONCLUSION: Because of multiple benefits of LAVH versus AH and no significant difference in cost, we believe LAVH is an acceptable treatment for large leiomyoma.
OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to perform a cost-effectiveness analysis comparing the treatment of large leiomyomas by laparoscopic assisted vaginal hysterectomy (LAVH) versus abdominal hysterectomy (AH). STUDY DESIGN: Twenty consecutive LAVH were compared to 20 consecutive AH for leiomyoma > or = 250 g. Hospital costs were obtained through Healthcare cost accounting system. The 6 principles of cost-effectiveness analysis were used. RESULTS: The groups were similar in respect to age, weight, race, medical comorbidities, blood loss, and operative time. Median uterine weight (513 g) was approximately 20% > for LAVH. Length of stay and pain was significantly less for LAVH. Total hospital cost for AH was approximately 12% less expensive ($4394 vs $5023, P = .18). CONCLUSION: Because of multiple benefits of LAVH versus AH and no significant difference in cost, we believe LAVH is an acceptable treatment for large leiomyoma.