Literature DB >> 29480429

Manchester-Fothergill procedure versus vaginal hysterectomy with uterosacral ligament suspension: an activity-based costing analysis.

Karen Ruben Husby1,2, Cæcilie Krogsgaard Tolstrup3,4, Gunnar Lose3,4, Niels Klarskov3,4.   

Abstract

INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS: Pelvic organ prolapse (POP) is a common diagnosis that imposes high and ever-growing costs to the healthcare economy. Numerous surgical techniques for the treatment of POP exist, but there is no consensus about which is the ideal technique for treating apical prolapse. The aim of this study was to estimate hospital costs for the most frequently performed operation, vaginal hysterectomy with uterosacral ligament suspension (VH) and the uterus-preserving Manchester-Fothergill procedure (MP), when including costs of postoperative activities.
METHODS: The study was based on a historical matched cohort including 590 patients (295 pairs) who underwent VH or MP during 2010-2014 owing to apical prolapse. The patients were matched according to age and preoperative prolapse stage and followed for a minimum of 20 months. Data were collected from four national registries and electronic medical records. Unit costs were obtained from relevant departments, hospital administration, calculated, or estimated by experts. The hospital perspective was applied for costing the resource use.
RESULTS: Total costs for the first 20 months after operation were 3,514 € per VH patient versus 2,318 € per MP patient. The cost difference between the techniques was 898 € (95% confidence interval [CI]: 818-982) per patient when analyzing the primary operation only and 1,196 € (CI: 927-1,465) when including subsequent activities within 20 months (p < 0.0001).
CONCLUSIONS: The MP is substantially less expensive than the commonly used VH from a 20-month time perspective. Healthcare costs can be reduced by one third if MP is preferred over VH in the treatment of apical prolapse.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Activity-based costing analysis; Apical prolapse; Economic analysis; Manchester–Fothergill procedure; Pelvic organ prolapse; Vaginal hysterectomy

Mesh:

Year:  2018        PMID: 29480429     DOI: 10.1007/s00192-018-3575-9

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Int Urogynecol J        ISSN: 0937-3462            Impact factor:   2.894


  15 in total

1.  An estimation of the frequency of surgery for posthysterectomy vault prolapse.

Authors:  Thomas Aigmueller; Andrea Dungl; Susanne Hinterholzer; Ingrid Geiss; Paul Riss
Journal:  Int Urogynecol J       Date:  2010-03       Impact factor: 2.894

2.  Comparative analysis of overall cost and rate of healthcare utilization among apical prolapse procedures.

Authors:  Lannah L Lua; Erika D Vicente; Prathamesh Pathak; Daniel Lybbert; Vani Dandolu
Journal:  Int Urogynecol J       Date:  2017-03-31       Impact factor: 2.894

Review 3.  The Manchester procedure versus vaginal hysterectomy in the treatment of uterine prolapse: a review.

Authors:  Cæcilie Krogsgaard Tolstrup; Gunnar Lose; Niels Klarskov
Journal:  Int Urogynecol J       Date:  2016-08-02       Impact factor: 2.894

4.  The UK national prolapse survey: 5 years on.

Authors:  Swati Jha; Paul Moran
Journal:  Int Urogynecol J       Date:  2011-02-22       Impact factor: 2.894

Review 5.  Surgical management of pelvic organ prolapse in women.

Authors:  Christopher Maher; Benjamin Feiner; Kaven Baessler; Elisabeth J Adams; Suzanne Hagen; Cathryn Ma Glazener
Journal:  Cochrane Database Syst Rev       Date:  2010-04-14

6.  Incidence of Occult Uterine Pathology in Women Undergoing Hysterectomy With Pelvic Organ Prolapse Repair.

Authors:  Mary F Ackenbom; Lauren E Giugale; Yanting Wang; Jonathan P Shepherd
Journal:  Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg       Date:  2016 Sep-Oct       Impact factor: 2.091

7.  Epidemiology of surgically managed pelvic organ prolapse and urinary incontinence.

Authors:  A L Olsen; V J Smith; J O Bergstrom; J C Colling; A L Clark
Journal:  Obstet Gynecol       Date:  1997-04       Impact factor: 7.661

8.  Prevalence of symptomatic pelvic floor disorders in US women.

Authors:  Ingrid Nygaard; Matthew D Barber; Kathryn L Burgio; Kimberly Kenton; Susan Meikle; Joseph Schaffer; Cathie Spino; William E Whitehead; Jennifer Wu; Debra J Brody
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  2008-09-17       Impact factor: 56.272

9.  Cervical amputation versus vaginal hysterectomy: a population-based register study.

Authors:  Ida Bergman; Marie Westergren Söderberg; Anders Kjaeldgaard; Marion Ek
Journal:  Int Urogynecol J       Date:  2016-08-16       Impact factor: 2.894

10.  The prevalence of pelvic organ prolapse symptoms and signs and their relation with bladder and bowel disorders in a general female population.

Authors:  Marijke C Ph Slieker-ten Hove; Annelies L Pool-Goudzwaard; Marinus J C Eijkemans; Regine P M Steegers-Theunissen; Curt W Burger; Mark E Vierhout
Journal:  Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct       Date:  2009-05-15
View more
  3 in total

1.  Trends in apical prolapse surgery between 2010 and 2016 in Denmark.

Authors:  Karen Ruben Husby; Gunnar Lose; Niels Klarskov
Journal:  Int Urogynecol J       Date:  2019-01-04       Impact factor: 2.894

2.  Surgical repair of vaginal vault prolapse; a comparison between ipsilateral uterosacral ligament suspension and sacrospinous ligament fixation-a nationwide cohort study.

Authors:  Karen Ruben Husby; Michael Due Larsen; Gunnar Lose; Niels Klarskov
Journal:  Int Urogynecol J       Date:  2020-09-08       Impact factor: 2.894

3.  Endometrial cancer after the Manchester procedure: a nationwide cohort study.

Authors:  Karen R Husby; Kim O Gradel; Niels Klarskov
Journal:  Int Urogynecol J       Date:  2022-04-13       Impact factor: 1.932

  3 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.