Financial analysis of minimally invasive sacrocolpopexy compared with native tissue vaginal repair with concomitant hysterectomy.

INTRODUCTION

Minimally invasive sacrocolpopexy (MISCP) is increasingly used for uterovaginal prolapse, but comparative cost data of MISCP versus native tissue vaginal repair (NTR) are lacking. The objective was to determine the cost difference, from a hospital perspective, between MISCP and NTR performed with hysterectomy for uterovaginal prolapse.

METHODS

This was a retrospective cohort study at a tertiary care center of women who underwent NTR or MISCP with concomitant hysterectomy in 2021. Hospital charges, direct and indirect costs, and operating margin (revenue minus costs) were obtained from Strata Jazz and compared using SPSS.

RESULTS

A total of 82 women were included, 33 MISCP (25 robotic, 8 laparoscopic) versus 49 NTR. Demographic and surgical data were similar, except that MISCP had younger age (50.5 vs 61.1 years, p<0.01). Same-day discharge and estimated blood loss were similar, but operative time was longer for MISCP (204 vs 161 min, p<0.01). MISCP total costs were higher (US$17,422 vs US$13,001, p<0.01). MISCP had higher direct costs (US$12,354 vs US$9,305, p<0.01) and indirect costs (US$5,068 vs US$3,696, p<0.01). Consumable supply costs were higher with MISCP (US$4,429 vs US$2,089, p<0.01), but the cost of operating room time and staff was similar (US$7,926 vs US$7,216, p=0.07). Controlling for same-day discharge, anti-incontinence procedures and smoking, total costs were higher for MISCP (adjusted beta = US$4,262, p<0.01). Mean charges (US$102,060 vs US$97,185, p=0.379), revenue (US$22,214 vs US$22,491, p=0.929), and operating margin (US$8,719 vs US$3,966, p=0.134) were not statistically different.

CONCLUSION

Minimally invasive sacrocolpopexy had higher costs than NTR; however, charges, reimbursement, and operating margins were not statistically significantly different between the groups.