Advertisement

International Urogynecology Journal

, Volume 27, Issue 2, pp 233–237 | Cite as

Abdominal sacral colpopexy versus sacrospinous ligament fixation: a cost-effectiveness analysis

  • Mika S. OhnoEmail author
  • Monica L. Richardson
  • Eric R. Sokol
Original Article

Abstract

Introduction and hypothesis

For the surgical correction of apical prolapse the abdominal approach is associated with better outcomes; however, it is more expensive than the transvaginal approach. This cost-effectiveness analysis compares abdominal sacral colpopexy (ASC) with sacrospinous ligament fixation (SSLF) to determine if the improved outcomes of ASC justify the increased expense.

Methods

A decision-analytic model was created comparing ASC with SSLF using data-modeling software, TreeAge Pro (2013), which included the following outcomes: post-operative stress urinary incontinence (SUI) with possible mid-urethral sling (MUS) placement, prolapse recurrence with possible re-operation, and post-operative dyspareunia. Cost-effectiveness was defined as an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of less than $50,000 per quality-associated life year (QALY). Base-case, threshold, and one-way sensitivity analyses were performed.

Results

At the baseline, ASC is more expensive than SSLF ($13,988 vs $11,950), but is more effective (QALY 1.53 vs 1.45) and is cost-effective (ICER $24,574/QALY) at 2 years. ASC was not cost-effective if the following four thresholds were met: the rate of post-operative SUI was above 36 % after ASC or below 28 % after SSLF; the rate of MUS placement for post-operative SUI was above 60 % after ASC or below 13 % after SSLF; the rate of recurrent prolapse was above 15 % after ASC or below 4 % after SSLF; the rate of post-operative dyspareunia was above 59 % after ASC or below 19 % after SSLF.

Conclusions

Abdominal sacral colpopexy can be cost-effective compared with sacrospinous ligament fixation; however, as the post-operative outcomes of SSLF improve, SSLF can be considered a cost-effective alternative.

Keywords

Apical prolapse Cost-effectiveness Decision analysis Modeling 

Abbreviations

ASC

Abdominal sacral colpopexy

ICER

Incremental cost-effectiveness ratio

MUS

Mid-urethral sling

QALY

Quality-associated life year

SSLF

Sacrospinous ligament fixation

SUI

Stress urinary incontinence

Notes

Conflict of interest

Dr Eric Sokol has received research grants from El.En. S.p.A, Cook MyoSite, Coloplast, and ACell. He is a National Principal Investigator with American Medical Systems and receives consulting fees. He is on the Society of Gynecologic Surgeons Executive Board and on the American Urogynecologic Society Scientific Program Committee. He reports no conflicts of interest with this body of research. Dr Mika Ohno and Dr Monica Richardson report no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. 1.
    Rogers RG, Fashokun TB (2014) An overview of the epidemiology, risk factors, clinical manifestations, and management of pelvic organ prolapse in women. http://www.uptodate.com. Accessed 16 June 2014
  2. 2.
    Jones KA, Shepherd JP, Oliphant SS, Wang L, Bunker CH, Lowder JL (2010) Trends in inpatient prolapse procedures in the United States, 1979–2006. Am J Obstet Gynecol 200:501.e1–7. doi: 10.1016/j.ajog.2010.01.017 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Barber MD, Maher C (2013) Apical prolapse. Int Urogynecol J 24:1815–1833. doi: 10.1007/s00192-013-2172-1 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Karram MM (2011) Abdominal sacral colpopexy. In: Baggish MS, Karram MM (eds) Atlas of pelvic anatomy and gynecologic surgery, 3rd edn. Elsevier, St Louis, pp 505–518Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Maher C, Feiner B, Baessler K, Schmid C (2013) Surgical management of pelvic organ prolapse in women. Cochrane Database of Syst Rev Issue 4. doi:  10.1002/14651858.CD004014.pub5
  6. 6.
    Richardson ML, Elliott CS, Shaw JG, Comiter CV, Chen B, Sokol ER (2013) To sling or not to sling at the time of abdominal sacrocolpopexy: a cost-effectiveness analysis. J Urol 190:1306–1312. doi: 10.1016/j.juro.2013.03.046 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Elliott CS, Hsieh MH, Sokol ER, Comiter CV, Payne CK, Chen B (2012) Robot-assisted versus open sacrocolpopexy: a cost-minimization analysis. J Urol 187:638–643. doi: 10.1016/j.juro.2011.09.160 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Medicare reimbursements by diagnosis related groups (2013) http://www.cms.gov/Research-Statistics-Data-and-Systems/Research-Statistics-Data-and-Systems.hmtl. Accessed 2 February 2014
  9. 9.
    Mittman N, Trakas K, Risebrough N, Liu BA (1999) Utility scores for chronic conditions in a community-dwelling population. Pharmacoeconomics 15:369–376CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Culligan PJ, Salamon C, Lewis C, Abell TD (2013) Cost-effectiveness analysis comparing robotic sacrocolpopexy to a vaginal mesh hysteropexy for treatment of uterovaginal prolapse. Open J Obstet Gynecol 3:613–620. doi: 10.4236/ojog.2013.38110 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Froberg DG, Kane RL (1989) Methodology for measuring health-state preferences – II: Scaling methods. J Clin Epidemiol 42:459–471. doi: 10.1016/0895-4356(89)90136-4 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Benson JT, Lucente V, McClellan E (1996) Vaginal versus abdominal reconstructive surgery for the treatment of pelvic support defects: a prospective randomized study with long-term outcome evaluation. Am J Obstet Gynecol 175:1418–1422. doi: 10.1016/S0002-9378(96)70084-4 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Lo T, Wang AC (1998) Abdominal colposacropexy and sacrospinous ligament suspension for severe uterovaginal prolapse: a comparison. J Gynecol Surg 14:59–64. doi: 10.1089/gyn.1998.14.59 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Maher CF, Qatawneh AM, Dwyer PL, Carey MP, Cornish A, Schluter PJ (2004) Abdominal sacral colpopexy or vaginal sacrospinous colpopexy for vaginal vault prolapse: a prospective randomized study. Am J Obstet Gynecol 190:20–26. doi: 10.1016/j.ajog.2003.08.031 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Hirth RA, Chernew ME, Miller E, Fendrick AM, Weissert WG (2000) Willingness to pay for a quality-adjusted life year: in search of a standard. Med Decis Making 20:332–342. doi: 10.1177/0272989X0002000310 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Wei JT, Nygaard I, Richter HE, Nager CW, Barber MD, Kenton K (2012) A midurethral sling to reduce incontinence after vaginal prolapse repair. N Engl J Med 366:2358–2367. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1111967 PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Beer M, Kuhn A (2005) Surgical techniques for vault prolapse: a review of the literature. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 119:144–155. doi: 10.1016/j.ejogrb.2004.06.042 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Cheon C, Maher C (2013) Economics of pelvic organ prolapse surgery. Int Urogynecol J 24:1873–1876. doi: 10.1007/s00192-013-2178-8 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Nygaard I, Brubaker L, Zyczynski HM, Cundiff G, Richter H, Gantz M et al (2013) Long-term outcomes following abdominal sacrocolpopexy for pelvic organ prolapse. JAMA 309:2016–2024. doi: 10.1001/jama.2013.4919 PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The International Urogynecological Association 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Mika S. Ohno
    • 1
    Email author
  • Monica L. Richardson
    • 1
  • Eric R. Sokol
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Obstetrics and GynecologyStanford University School of MedicineStanfordUSA

Personalised recommendations