Literature DB >> 23583856

Cost-effectiveness of risk stratified followup after urethral reconstruction: a decision analysis.

Michael J Belsante1, Lee C Zhao, Steven J Hudak, Yair Lotan, Allen F Morey.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: We propose a novel risk stratified followup protocol for use after urethroplasty and explore potential cost savings.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Decision analysis was performed comparing a symptom based, risk stratified protocol for patients undergoing excision and primary anastomosis urethroplasty vs a standard regimen of close followup for urethroplasty. Model assumptions included that excision and primary anastomosis has a 94% success rate, 11% of patients with successful urethroplasty had persistent lower urinary tract symptoms requiring cystoscopic evaluation, patients in whom treatment failed undergo urethrotomy and patients with recurrence on symptom based surveillance have a delayed diagnosis requiring suprapubic tube drainage. The Nationwide Inpatient Sample from 2010 was queried to identify the number of urethroplasties performed per year in the United States. Costs were obtained based on Medicare reimbursement rates.
RESULTS: The 5-year cost of a symptom based, risk stratified followup protocol is $430 per patient vs $2,827 per patient using standard close followup practice. An estimated 7,761 urethroplasties were performed in the United States in 2010. Assuming that 60% were excision and primary anastomosis, and with more than 5 years of followup, the risk stratified protocol was projected to yield an estimated savings of $11,165,130. Sensitivity analysis showed that the symptom based, risk stratified followup protocol was far more cost-effective than standard close followup in all settings. Less than 1% of patients would be expected to have an asymptomatic recurrence using the risk stratified followup protocol.
CONCLUSIONS: A risk stratified, symptom based approach to urethroplasty followup would produce a significant reduction in health care costs while decreasing unnecessary followup visits, invasive testing and radiation exposure.
Copyright © 2013 American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  DVIU; EPA; NIS; Nationwide Inpatient Sample; RUG; SP; VCUG; costs and cost analysis; direct vision internal urethrotomy; excision and primary anastomosis; retrograde urethrography; suprapubic; urethra; urethral stricture; voiding cystourethrography

Mesh:

Year:  2013        PMID: 23583856     DOI: 10.1016/j.juro.2013.04.024

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Urol        ISSN: 0022-5347            Impact factor:   7.450


  9 in total

1.  National Variation in Urethroplasty Cost and Predictors of Extreme Cost: A Cost Analysis With Policy Implications.

Authors:  Catherine R Harris; E Charles Osterberg; Thomas Sanford; Amjad Alwaal; Thomas W Gaither; Jack W McAninch; Charles E McCulloch; Benjamin N Breyer
Journal:  Urology       Date:  2016-04-20       Impact factor: 2.649

2.  Cost-effective management of pelvic fracture urethral injuries.

Authors:  Niels V Johnsen; David F Penson; W Stuart Reynolds; Douglas F Milam; Roger R Dmochowski; Melissa R Kaufman
Journal:  World J Urol       Date:  2017-02-22       Impact factor: 4.226

Review 3.  The cost of surveillance after urethroplasty.

Authors:  Uwais B Zaid; Mitchel Hawkins; Leslie Wilson; Jie Ting; Catherine Harris; Amjad Alwaal; Lee C Zhao; Allen F Morey; Benjamin N Breyer
Journal:  Urology       Date:  2015-03-25       Impact factor: 2.649

Review 4.  Management of the Recurrent Male Urethral Stricture.

Authors:  Uwais B Zaid; Garjae Lavien; Andrew C Peterson
Journal:  Curr Urol Rep       Date:  2016-04       Impact factor: 3.092

5.  Open urethroplasty versus endoscopic urethrotomy for recurrent urethral stricture in men: the OPEN RCT.

Authors:  Robert Pickard; Beatriz Goulao; Sonya Carnell; Jing Shen; Graeme MacLennan; John Norrie; Matt Breckons; Luke Vale; Paul Whybrow; Tim Rapley; Rebecca Forbes; Stephanie Currer; Mark Forrest; Jennifer Wilkinson; Elaine McColl; Daniela Andrich; Stewart Barclay; Jonathan Cook; Anthony Mundy; James N'Dow; Stephen Payne; Nick Watkin
Journal:  Health Technol Assess       Date:  2020-11       Impact factor: 4.014

6.  Multi-institutional 1-year bulbar urethroplasty outcomes using a standardized prospective cystoscopic follow-up protocol.

Authors:  Bradley A Erickson; Sean P Elliott; Bryan B Voelzke; Jeremy B Myers; Joshua A Broghammer; Thomas G Smith; Chris D McClung; Nejd F Alsikafi; William O Brant
Journal:  Urology       Date:  2014-05-14       Impact factor: 2.649

7.  Assessment of satisfaction and Quality of Life using self -reported questionnaires after urethroplasty: a prospective analysis.

Authors:  Eduardo Terra Lucas; Walter José Koff; Tiago Elias Rosito; Milton Berger; Tiago Bortolini; Brasil Silva Neto
Journal:  Int Braz J Urol       Date:  2017 Mar-Apr       Impact factor: 1.541

8.  Endoscopic urethrotomy versus open urethroplasty for men with bulbar urethral stricture: the OPEN randomised trial cost-effectiveness analysis.

Authors:  Jing Shen; Luke Vale; Beatriz Goulao; Paul Whybrow; Stephen Payne; Nick Watkin
Journal:  BMC Urol       Date:  2021-05-03       Impact factor: 2.264

Review 9.  The role of noninvasive testing and questionnaires in urethroplasty follow-up.

Authors:  Gareth J Warren; Bradley A Erickson
Journal:  Transl Androl Urol       Date:  2014-06
  9 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.