Mesh kits for anterior vaginal prolapse are not cost effective

Sunshine Murray, Rashel M. Haverkorn, Yair Lotan, Gary E Lemack

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

12 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

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 <20% or extrusion >25%. Conclusions: Mesh kits for AVP repair are not cost effective, regardless of the OR time saved.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)447-452
Number of pages6
JournalInternational Urogynecology Journal and Pelvic Floor Dysfunction
Volume22
Issue number4
DOIs
StatePublished - Apr 2011

Fingerprint

Uterine Prolapse
Operating Rooms
Costs and Cost Analysis
Recurrence
Hospital Equipment and Supplies
Office Visits
Fees and Charges
Decision Support Techniques
Hospital Costs
Medicare
Cost-Benefit Analysis
Meta-Analysis
Hand

Keywords

  • Cost
  • Cystocele
  • Mesh
  • Prolapse

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Urology
  • Obstetrics and Gynecology

Cite this

Mesh kits for anterior vaginal prolapse are not cost effective. / Murray, Sunshine; Haverkorn, Rashel M.; Lotan, Yair; Lemack, Gary E.

In: International Urogynecology Journal and Pelvic Floor Dysfunction, Vol. 22, No. 4, 04.2011, p. 447-452.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{a1d8a68ccbd54fb5b6d2e6b3c857f362,
title = "Mesh kits for anterior vaginal prolapse are not cost effective",
abstract = "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 <20{\%} or extrusion >25{\%}. Conclusions: Mesh kits for AVP repair are not cost effective, regardless of the OR time saved.",
keywords = "Cost, Cystocele, Mesh, Prolapse",
author = "Sunshine Murray and Haverkorn, {Rashel M.} and Yair Lotan and Lemack, {Gary E}",
year = "2011",
month = "4",
doi = "10.1007/s00192-010-1291-1",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "22",
pages = "447--452",
journal = "International Urogynecology Journal and Pelvic Floor Dysfunction",
issn = "0937-3462",
publisher = "Springer London",
number = "4",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Mesh kits for anterior vaginal prolapse are not cost effective

AU - Murray, Sunshine

AU - Haverkorn, Rashel M.

AU - Lotan, Yair

AU - Lemack, Gary E

PY - 2011/4

Y1 - 2011/4

N2 - 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 <20% or extrusion >25%. Conclusions: Mesh kits for AVP repair are not cost effective, regardless of the OR time saved.

AB - 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 <20% or extrusion >25%. Conclusions: Mesh kits for AVP repair are not cost effective, regardless of the OR time saved.

KW - Cost

KW - Cystocele

KW - Mesh

KW - Prolapse

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=79959792650&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=79959792650&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1007/s00192-010-1291-1

DO - 10.1007/s00192-010-1291-1

M3 - Article

C2 - 20936256

AN - SCOPUS:79959792650

VL - 22

SP - 447

EP - 452

JO - International Urogynecology Journal and Pelvic Floor Dysfunction

JF - International Urogynecology Journal and Pelvic Floor Dysfunction

SN - 0937-3462

IS - 4

ER -