Cost-effectiveness Analysis: Autologous Rectus Fascial Sling Versus Retropubic Midurethral Sling for Female Stress Urinary Incontinence.

IMPORTANCE

There are limited data on the economic comparison between retropubic midurethral sling and autologous fascial sling.

OBJECTIVE

This study aims to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of autologous rectus fascial sling compared with retropubic midurethral sling from both hospital and health care perspectives.

STUDY

DESIGN

A decision tree model was developed with 1 year of follow-up. We included variables such as objective success rate, complications and subsequent treatments, and retreatment for incontinence. The model included the index procedure and 1 retreatment for stress urinary incontinence. Cost estimates were calculated from both hospital and health care perspectives. The outcomes were expressed in incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) or cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY). An ICER <$50,000/QALY was considered cost-effective.

RESULTS

From a hospital perspective, the overall cost of retropubic midurethral sling was higher than autologous rectus fascial sling ($2,348.94 vs $2,114.06), but was more effective (0.82 vs 0.80 QALYs). The ICER was $17,452/QALY. From a health care perspective, the overall cost of autologous rectus fascial sling was higher than retropubic midurethral sling ($4,656.63 vs $4,630.47) and was less effective. Retropubic midurethral sling was the dominant strategy, with ICER of -$1,943.32/QALY. If the success rate of autologous rectus fascial sling was ≥84.39%, or the cost of retropubic midurethral sling surgery was > $2,654.36, then autologous rectus fascial sling would become cost-effective.

CONCLUSIONS

Retropubic midurethral sling is the cost-effective treatment from the hospital perspective and the dominant treatment from the health care perspective. However, changes in the costs and success rates of surgical procedures can alter the cost-effectiveness results.