Economic Evaluation of Keratoplasty
The economic evaluation of healthcare interventions is now a prerequisite in many jurisdictions. Adoption of new healthcare interventions cannot only be based on their efficacy and safety. In the context of limited healthcare resources we are facing, their economic impact should also be considered. To estimate the economic impact of health interventions, methods for economic evaluation have been developed and adopted. The main objective of these economic evaluations is to help the healthcare decision makers to select interventions that will support a better allocation of resources.
Alongside the development of different surgical techniques for corneal transplantation, economic evaluations have been performed. The new surgical procedures have improved the clinical performance of corneal transplantation, and in most cases these new interventions were shown to be cost-effective.
Only a few economic evaluations of corneal transplantation techniques have been performed in only a few different countries. Additional economic evaluations are needed to assess the economic impact of these interventions over many more contexts of use.
KeywordsCorneal transplantation Economic evaluation Cost-effectiveness analysis and cost-utility analysis
- 1.Drummond MF, O’Brien B, Stoddard GL, Torrance GW. Methods for the economic evaluation of health care programmes. 3rd ed. Oxford: Oxford Medical Publication, Oxford University Press; 2005.Google Scholar
- 2.Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health. Guidelines for the economic evaluation of health technologies: Canada. 3rd ed. Ottawa: Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health; 2006.Google Scholar
- 4.World Health Organization. Human organ and tissue transplantation. Report by the Secretariat; 2003.Google Scholar
- 5.Canadian Blood Services. Demand for ocular tissue in Canada – final report Ottawa; 2010.Google Scholar
- 6.EBAA. 2013 Eye banking statistical report. Washington, DC: EBAA; 2014.Google Scholar
- 19.Terry MA, Ousley PJ. Replacing the endothelium without corneal surface incisions or sutures: the first United States clinical series using the deep lamellar endothelial keratoplasty procedure. Ophthalmology. 2003;110(4):755–64. doi: 10.1016/s0161-6420(02)01939-5; discussion 64.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 36.Price MO, Gorovoy M, Price Jr FW, Benetz BA, Menegay HJ, Lass JH. Descemet’s stripping automated endothelial keratoplasty: three-year graft and endothelial cell survival compared with penetrating keratoplasty. Ophthalmology. 2013;120(2):246–51. doi: 10.1016/j.ophtha.2012.08.007.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 40.Phillips PM, Terry MA, Shamie N, Chen ES, Hoar KL, Stoeger C, et al. Descemet’s stripping automated endothelial keratoplasty (DSAEK) using corneal donor tissue not acceptable for use in penetrating keratoplasty as a result of anterior stromal scars, pterygia, and previous corneal refractive surgical procedures. Cornea. 2009;28(8):871–6. doi: 10.1097/ICO.0b013e318199f8d7.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 41.Groeneveld-van Beek EA, Lie JT, van der Wees J, Bruinsma M, Melles GR. Standardized ‘no-touch’ donor tissue preparation for DALK and DMEK: harvesting undamaged anterior and posterior transplants from the same donor cornea. Acta Ophthalmol. 2013;91(2):145–50. doi: 10.1111/j.1755-3768.2012.02462.x.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 47.Cheng YY, Visser N, Schouten JS, Wijdh RJ, Pels E, van Cleynenbreugel H, et al. Endothelial cell loss and visual outcome of deep anterior lamellar keratoplasty versus penetrating keratoplasty: a randomized multicenter clinical trial. Ophthalmology. 2011;118(2):302–9. doi: 10.1016/j.ophtha.2010.06.005.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 50.Prabhu SS, Kaakeh R, Sugar A, Smith DG, Shtein RM. Comparative cost-effectiveness analysis of Descemet stripping automated endothelial keratoplasty versus penetrating keratoplasty in the United States. Am J Ophthalmol. 2013;155(1):45–53e1. doi: 10.1016/j.ajo.2012.06.014.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar