Surgical Correction of the Genital Hiatus at the Time of Sacrocolpopexy—Are Concurrent Posterior Repairs Cost-Effective?. Issue 5 (16th May 2022)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Chang, Olivia H.; Shepherd, Jonathan P.; St. Martin, Brad; Sokol, Eric R.; Wallace, Shannon
• Is Part Of: Female pelvic medicine & reconstructive surgery. Volume 28:Issue 5(2022)
• Page Start: 325
• Page End: 331
• Publication Date: 2022-05-16
• Subjects: genital hiatus -- sacrocolpopexy -- posterior colporrhaphy -- perineorrhaphy -- posterior repair -- pelvic organ prolapse -- prolapse recurrence; Pelvis -- Diseases -- Periodicals; Pelvis -- Surgery -- Periodicals; Genital Diseases, Female -- surgery -- Periodicals; Urologic Diseases -- surgery -- Periodicals; Colonic Diseases -- surgery -- Periodicals; Rectal Diseases -- surgery -- Periodicals; Surgical Procedures, Operative -- methods -- Periodicals; 616.6
• DOI: 10.1097/SPV.0000000000001130
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 2151-8378

Abstract

Abstract : Objective: The objective was to perform a cost-effectiveness analysis of posterior repair performed at the time of sacrocolpopexy (SCP). Methods: We used TreeAge Pro to construct a decision model comparing laparoscopic hysterectomy with SCP with and without concurrent posterior repair (SCP and SCP + PR). Using a time horizon of 1 year, we modeled prolapse recurrence, prolapse retreatment, and complications, including rectal injury, rectovaginal hematoma requiring surgical take-back, and postoperative dyspareunia. Costs included index surgery, surgical retreatment, and complications. We modeled effectiveness as quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). Cost-effectiveness was defined using the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio and willingness to pay of $100, 000/QALY. Sensitivity analyses were performed. Results: Sacrocolpopexy was the dominant strategy with a cost of $65, 714 and an effectiveness of 0.84. It was cost-effective at willingness to pay threshold less than $100, 000/QALY. The SCP + PR costs more ($75, 063) with lower effectiveness (0.83). The effectiveness of the 2 strategies was similar, differing only by 0.01 QALY, which is less than the minimally important difference for utilities. Tornado plots showed CEA results were most influenced by the cost of SCP, cost of SCP + PR, and probability of dyspareunia after SCP. In 1-way sensitivity analyses, the model outcome would change only if the cost of SCP was increased by 12.8% or if the cost of SCP + PR decreased by 14.5%. For dyspareunia, our model would only change if the probability of dyspareunia after SCP alone was 75.9% (base case, 18.6%), whereas the probability of dyspareunia after SCP + PR was 26.8%. Conclusion: In this cost-effectiveness analysis, SCP without concurrent PR was the dominant strategy.