Lannah L Lua1, Erika D Vicente1, Prathamesh Pathak1, Daniel Lybbert1, Vani Dandolu2. 1. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Nevada School of Medicine, 1707 West Charleston Blvd, Suite 120, Las Vegas, NV, 89102, USA. 2. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Nevada School of Medicine, 1707 West Charleston Blvd, Suite 120, Las Vegas, NV, 89102, USA. vdandolu@medicine.nevada.edu.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS: The annual cost of prolapse surgeries is expected to grow at twice the rate of population growth. Understanding the economic impact of apical prolapse procedures, including sacrospinous fixation (SSF), abdominal sacrocolpopexy (ASC), and laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy (LSC), is crucial. We aimed to compare overall cost of SSF versus ASC and LSC, as well as health resource utilization, up to 90-day follow-up. METHODS: Truven Marketscan Commercial Claims and Encounter databases 2008-2012 were used to calculate index and 90-day follow-up costs for SSF, ASC, and LSC with/without hysterectomy. Rates of inpatient readmissions, outpatient visits, and emergency room (ER) visits were also calculated during the follow-up period. Statistical analyses were performed using SAS 9.3. RESULTS: There were 17,549 SSF, 6126 ASC, and 10,708 LSC procedures. Mean index cost was lower for SSF (US$10,993) than ASC ($12,763, p < 0.0001) and LSC ($13,647, p < 0.0001). Concurrent hysterectomy impacted costs. Follow-up costs were likewise lower for SSF ($13,916) than ASC ($15,716, p < 0.0001) and LSC ($16,838, p < 0.0001). Lower rates of readmission were reported in SSF (4.22%) than ASC (5.40%, p = 0.0001) and LSC (4.64%, p = 0.0411). The rate of at least one ER visit was also lower for SSF (10.9%) than for ASC (12.0%, p = 0.0170) and comparable with LSC (10.6%, p = 0.0302). CONCLUSIONS: Overall mean costs are significantly lower for SSF than ASC/LSC, as are those for health resource utilization. Besides lower morbidity rates being associated with vaginal procedures, our results demonstrate another reason to consider the increased use of SSF over sacrocolpopexies in apical prolapse surgery.
INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS: The annual cost of prolapse surgeries is expected to grow at twice the rate of population growth. Understanding the economic impact of apical prolapse procedures, including sacrospinous fixation (SSF), abdominal sacrocolpopexy (ASC), and laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy (LSC), is crucial. We aimed to compare overall cost of SSF versus ASC and LSC, as well as health resource utilization, up to 90-day follow-up. METHODS: Truven Marketscan Commercial Claims and Encounter databases 2008-2012 were used to calculate index and 90-day follow-up costs for SSF, ASC, and LSC with/without hysterectomy. Rates of inpatient readmissions, outpatient visits, and emergency room (ER) visits were also calculated during the follow-up period. Statistical analyses were performed using SAS 9.3. RESULTS: There were 17,549 SSF, 6126 ASC, and 10,708 LSC procedures. Mean index cost was lower for SSF (US$10,993) than ASC ($12,763, p < 0.0001) and LSC ($13,647, p < 0.0001). Concurrent hysterectomy impacted costs. Follow-up costs were likewise lower for SSF ($13,916) than ASC ($15,716, p < 0.0001) and LSC ($16,838, p < 0.0001). Lower rates of readmission were reported in SSF (4.22%) than ASC (5.40%, p = 0.0001) and LSC (4.64%, p = 0.0411). The rate of at least one ER visit was also lower for SSF (10.9%) than for ASC (12.0%, p = 0.0170) and comparable with LSC (10.6%, p = 0.0302). CONCLUSIONS: Overall mean costs are significantly lower for SSF than ASC/LSC, as are those for health resource utilization. Besides lower morbidity rates being associated with vaginal procedures, our results demonstrate another reason to consider the increased use of SSF over sacrocolpopexies in apical prolapse surgery.
Authors: J P W R Roovers; J G van der Bom; C H van der Vaart; J H Schagen van Leeuwen; P C Scholten; A P M Heintz Journal: Neurourol Urodyn Date: 2005 Impact factor: 2.696
Authors: Tatiana V D Sanses; Nicholas K Schiltz; Holly E Richter; Siran M Koroukian Journal: Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg Date: 2016 Mar-Apr Impact factor: 2.091
Authors: Ingrid E Nygaard; Rebecca McCreery; Linda Brubaker; AnnaMarie Connolly; Geoff Cundiff; Anne M Weber; Halina Zyczynski Journal: Obstet Gynecol Date: 2004-10 Impact factor: 7.661
Authors: Salvatore Giovanni Vitale; Antonio Simone Laganà; Marco Noventa; Pierluigi Giampaolino; Brunella Zizolfi; Salvatore Butticè; Valentina Lucia La Rosa; Giuseppe Gullo; Diego Rossetti Journal: Biomed Res Int Date: 2018-02-28 Impact factor: 3.411
Authors: Edward Morcos; Christian Falconer; Emilie Toresson Grip; Kirk Geale; Katarina Hellgren; Georgios Poutakidis; Daniel Altman Journal: Int Urogynecol J Date: 2021-02-26 Impact factor: 2.894