Abstract
Introduction and hypothesis
The aim was to review the economic costs associated with pelvic organ prolapse surgery.
Methods
Every 4 years and as part of the Fifth International Collaboration on Incontinence we reviewed the English-language scientific literature after searching PubMed, Medline, Cochrane library and Cochrane database of systematic reviews, published up to January 2012. Publications were classified as level 1 evidence (randomised controlled trials [RCT] or systematic reviews), level 2 (poor quality RCT, prospective cohort studies), level 3 (case series or retrospective studies) and level 4 (case reports). The highest level of evidence was utilised by the committee to make evidence based recommendations based upon the Oxford grading system. Grade A recommendation usually depends on consistent level 1 evidence. Grade B recommendation usually depends on consistent level 2 and/or 3 studies, or “majority evidence” from RCTs. Grade C recommendation usually depends on level 4 studies or “majority evidence” from level 2/3 studies or Delphi processed expert opinion. Grade D “no recommendation possible” would be used where the evidence is inadequate or conflicting and when expert opinion is delivered without a formal analytical process, such as by Delphi.
Results
The annual economic costs of pelvic organ prolapse surgeries are significant and over the next decades will grow at twice the rate of population growth because of our aging population. In a single institution study vaginal reconstructive surgery and pessary use were more cost-effective than expectant management, traditional abdominal sacral colpopexy (ASC) or robot-assisted sacral colpopexy (RSC; grade C). Two studies have demonstrated that ASC incurs lower inpatient costs than LSC or RSC (grade C). Data from a single RCT demonstrated the LSC to incur lower inpatient costs than RSC specifically relating to shorter operating times in the LSC group (grade B). Data from a single RCT demonstrated LSC to be a more effective cost-minimising surgery than total vaginal mesh for vaginal vault prolapse (grade B). Data from a meta-analysis of anterior vaginal compartment prolapse operations demonstrated that commercial mesh kits for anterior repair are less cost-effective than non-kit mesh and anterior colporrhaphy (grade B).
Conclusions
There is a paucity of good economic data relating to pelvic organ prolapse surgery. Transvaginal mesh surgeries have not been proven to be cost-effective. It is recommended that all randomised controlled trials relating to prolapse surgery include a formal cost analysis.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Bradley CS, Kenton KS, Richter HE et al (2008) Obesity and outcomes after sacrocolpopexy. Am J Obstet Gynecol 199(6):690e1–690e8
Lawrence JM, Lukacz ES, Nager CW, Hsu JW, Luber KM (2008) Prevalence and co-occurrence of pelvic floor disorders in community-dwelling women. Obstet Gynecol 111(3):678–685
Olsen AL, Smith VJ, Bergstrom JO, Colling JC, Clark AL (1997) Epidemiology of surgically managed pelvic organ prolapse and urinary incontinence. Obstet Gynecol 89(4):501–506
Smith FJ, Holman CD, Moorin RE, Tsokos N (2010) Lifetime risk of undergoing surgery for pelvic organ prolapse. Obstet Gynecol 116(5):1096–1100
Wu JM, Hundley AF, Fulton RG, Myers ER (2009) Forecasting the prevalence of pelvic floor disorders in U.S. women: 2010 to 2050. Obstet Gynecol 114(6):1278–1283
Subak LL, Waetjen LE, van den Eeden S, Thom DH, Vittinghoff E, Brown JS (2001) Cost of pelvic organ prolapse surgery in the United States. Obstet Gynecol 98(4):646–651
Subramanian D, Szwarcensztein K, Mauskopf JA, Slack MC (2009) Rate, type, and cost of pelvic organ prolapse surgery in Germany, France, and England. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 144(2):177–181
Hullfish KL, Trowbridge ER, Stukenborg GJ (2011) Treatment strategies for pelvic organ prolapse: a cost-effectiveness analysis. Int Urogynecol J 22(5):507–515
Judd JP, Siddiqui NY, Barnett JC, Visco AG, Havrilesky LJ, Wu JM (2010) Cost-minimization analysis of robotic-assisted, laparoscopic, and abdominal sacrocolpopexy. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 17(4):493–499
Patel M, O’Sullivan D, Tulikangas PK (2009) A comparison of costs for abdominal, laparoscopic, and robot-assisted sacral colpopexy. Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct 20(2):223–228
Paraiso MF, Jelovsek JE, Frick A, Chen CC, Barber MD (2011) Laparoscopic compared with robotic sacrocolpopexy for vaginal prolapse: a randomized controlled trial. Obstet Gynecol 118(5):1005–1013
Murray S, Haverkorn RM, Lotan Y, Lemack GE (2011) Mesh kits for anterior vaginal prolapse are not cost effective. Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct 22(4):447–452
Maher CF, Connelly LB (2011) Cost minimization analysis of laparoscopic sacral colpopexy and total vaginal mesh. Am J Obstet Gynecol 206(5):433e1–433e7
Acknowledgements
This publication results from the work of the Committee on Pelvic Organ Prolapse Surgery, part of the 5th International Consultation on Incontinence, held in Paris in February 2012, under the auspices of the International Consultation on Urological Diseases, and enabled by the support of the European Association of Urology.
The authors wish to acknowledge the fine work of previous consultations led by Professor Linda Brubaker.
Conflicts of interest
None.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
On behalf of Committee 15 “Surgical Management of Pelvic Organ Prolapse” from the 5th International Consultation on Incontinence held in Paris, February 2012
This work has been previously published as: Maher C, Baessler K, Barber M, Cheon C, Deitz V, DeTayrac R, Gutman R, Karram M, Sentilhes L (2013) Surgical management of pelvic organ prolapse. In: Abrams, Cardozo, Khoury, Wein (eds) 5th International Consultation on Incontinence. Health Publication Ltd, Paris, Chapter 15 and modified for publication in International Urogynaecology Journal.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Cheon, C., Maher, C. Economics of pelvic organ prolapse surgery. Int Urogynecol J 24, 1873–1876 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-013-2178-8
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-013-2178-8