PURPOSE: The optimal method for neovagina creation in patients with vaginal agenesis is controversial. Progressive perineal dilation is a minimally invasive method with high success rates. However, the economic merits of progressive perineal dilation compared to surgical vaginoplasty are unknown. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We performed a Markov based cost-effectiveness analysis of 3 management strategies for vaginal agenesis-progressive perineal dilation with and without subsequent vaginoplasty, and up-front vaginoplasty. Cost data were drawn from the Pediatric Health Information System database (2004 to 2009) for inpatient procedures and from governmental cost data (2009) for outpatient procedures and clinical followup. Other model parameters were derived from a systematic literature review and comparison with other congenital and acquired pediatric and/or adolescent gynecologic conditions. Bounded and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were used to assess model stability. RESULTS: Including all procedures, equipment and physician visits, progressive perineal dilation had a mean cost of $796, while vaginoplasty cost $18,520. Up-front vaginoplasty was strongly dominated at any age, ie was more expensive but no more effective than other options. In cases of progressive perineal dilation failure the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of progressive perineal dilation with subsequent vaginoplasty was $1,564 per quality adjusted life-year. Only the utility weights of life after treatment impacted model outcomes, while frequency of followup and probability of treatment success did not. CONCLUSIONS: Initial progressive perineal dilation followed by vaginoplasty in cases of dilation failure is the most cost-effective management strategy for vaginal agenesis. Initial vaginoplasty was less cost-effective than initial progressive perineal dilation in 99.99% of simulations.
PURPOSE: The optimal method for neovagina creation in patients with vaginal agenesis is controversial. Progressive perineal dilation is a minimally invasive method with high success rates. However, the economic merits of progressive perineal dilation compared to surgical vaginoplasty are unknown. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We performed a Markov based cost-effectiveness analysis of 3 management strategies for vaginal agenesis-progressive perineal dilation with and without subsequent vaginoplasty, and up-front vaginoplasty. Cost data were drawn from the Pediatric Health Information System database (2004 to 2009) for inpatient procedures and from governmental cost data (2009) for outpatient procedures and clinical followup. Other model parameters were derived from a systematic literature review and comparison with other congenital and acquired pediatric and/or adolescent gynecologic conditions. Bounded and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were used to assess model stability. RESULTS: Including all procedures, equipment and physician visits, progressive perineal dilation had a mean cost of $796, while vaginoplasty cost $18,520. Up-front vaginoplasty was strongly dominated at any age, ie was more expensive but no more effective than other options. In cases of progressive perineal dilation failure the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of progressive perineal dilation with subsequent vaginoplasty was $1,564 per quality adjusted life-year. Only the utility weights of life after treatment impacted model outcomes, while frequency of followup and probability of treatment success did not. CONCLUSIONS: Initial progressive perineal dilation followed by vaginoplasty in cases of dilation failure is the most cost-effective management strategy for vaginal agenesis. Initial vaginoplasty was less cost-effective than initial progressive perineal dilation in 99.99% of simulations.