Mesh kits for anterior vaginal prolapse are not cost effective
Introduction and hypothesis To analyze the cost-effectiveness of traditional anterior colporrhaphy (AC), hand-cut mesh, and mesh kit anterior vaginal prolapse (AVP) repair. Methods A decision analysis model was built using mean operating room (OR) times, mesh extrusion rates, and recurrence rates ob...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | International Urogynecology Journal 2011-04, Vol.22 (4), p.447-452 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
Zusammenfassung: | Introduction and hypothesis
To analyze the cost-effectiveness of traditional anterior colporrhaphy (AC), hand-cut mesh, and mesh kit anterior vaginal prolapse (AVP) repair.
Methods
A decision analysis model was built using mean operating room (OR) times, mesh extrusion rates, and recurrence rates obtained from a meta-analysis along with Medicare reimbursement for surgeon fees and office visits, and hospital costs of supplies, OR time, and room and board.
Results
Non-kit mesh repair was $3,380, AC $3,461, and mesh kit $4,678. One-way sensitivity analyses demonstrated recurrence rate of AC would need to be 28% to be equally cost effective. Mesh kit repair did not reach cost equivalence even at 0 min OR time. Two-way sensitivity analysis comparing mesh extrusion and AC recurrence demonstrated AC is more cost effective if recurrence is 25%.
Conclusions
Mesh kits for AVP repair are not cost effective, regardless of the OR time saved. |
---|---|
ISSN: | 0937-3462 1433-3023 |
DOI: | 10.1007/s00192-010-1291-1 |