Cost-effectiveness of Surgical Treatment Pathways for Prolapse

Long-Term Costs of Minimally Invasive Sacral Colpopexy Compared to Native Tissue Vaginal Repair With Concomitant Hysterectomy

STUDY OBJECTIVE

To determine the long-term costs of hysterectomy with minimally invasive sacrocolpopexy (MISCP) versus uterosacral ligament suspension (USLS) for primary uterovaginal prolapse repair.

DESIGN

A hospital-based decision analysis model was built using TreeAge Pro (TreeAge Software Inc, Williamstown, MA). Those with prolapse were modeled to undergo either vaginal hysterectomy with USLS or minimally invasive total hysterectomy with sacrocolpopexy (MISCP). We modeled the chance of complications of the index procedure, prolapse recurrence with the option for surgical retreatment, complications of the salvage procedure, and possible second prolapse recurrence. The primary outcome was cost of the surgical strategy. The proportion of patients living with prolapse after treatment was the secondary outcome.

SETTING

Tertiary center for urogynecology.

PATIENTS

Female patients undergoing surgical repair by the same team for primary uterovaginal prolapse.

INTERVENTIONS

Comparison analysis of estimated long-term costs was performed.

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS

Our primary outcome showed that a strategy of undergoing MISCP as the primary index procedure cost $19 935 and that undergoing USLS as the primary index procedure cost $15 457, a difference of $4478. Furthermore, 21.1% of women in the USLS group will be living with recurrent prolapse compared to 6.2% of MISCP patients. Switching from USLS to MISCP to minimize recurrence risk would cost $30 054 per case of prolapse prevented. Additionally, a surgeon would have to perform 6.7 cases by MISCP instead of USLS in order to prevent 1 patient from having recurrent prolapse.

CONCLUSION

The higher initial costs of MISCP compared to USLS persist in the long term after factoring in recurrence and complication rates, though more patients who undergo USLS live with prolapse recurrence.

A systematic review of full economic evaluations of robotic-assisted surgery in thoracic and abdominopelvic procedures

This study aims to conduct a systematic review of full economic analyses of robotic-assisted surgery (RAS) in adults' thoracic and abdominopelvic indications. Authors used Medline, EMBASE, and PubMed to conduct a systematic review following the preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses (PRISMA) 2020 guidelines. Fully published economic articles in English were included. Methodology and reporting quality were assessed using standardized tools. Majority of studies (28/33) were on oncology procedures. Radical prostatectomy was the most reported procedure (16/33). Twenty-eight studies used quality-adjusted life years, and five used complication rates as outcomes. Nine used primary and 24 studies used secondary data. All studies used modeling. In 81% of studies (27/33), RAS was cost-effective or potentially cost-effective compared to comparator procedures, including radical prostatectomy, nephrectomy, and cystectomy. Societal perspective, longer-term time-horizon, and larger volumes favored RAS. Cost-drivers were length of stay and equipment cost. From societal and payer perspectives, robotic-assisted surgery is a cost-effective strategy for thoracic and abdominopelvic procedures.Clinical trial registration This study is a systematic review with no intervention, not a clinical trial.

Robot-assisted pelvic floor reconstructive surgery: an international Delphi study of expert users

BACKGROUND

Robotic surgery has gained popularity for the reconstruction of pelvic floor defects. Nonetheless, there is no evidence that robot-assisted reconstructive surgery is either appropriate or superior to standard laparoscopy for the performance of pelvic floor reconstructive procedures or that it is sustainable. The aim of this project was to address the proper role of robotic pelvic floor reconstructive procedures using expert opinion.

METHODS

We set up an international, multidisciplinary group of 26 experts to participate in a Delphi process on robotics as applied to pelvic floor reconstructive surgery. The group comprised urogynecologists, urologists, and colorectal surgeons with long-term experience in the performance of pelvic floor reconstructive procedures and with the use of the robot, who were identified primarily based on peer-reviewed publications. Two rounds of the Delphi process were conducted. The first included 63 statements pertaining to surgeons' characteristics, general questions, indications, surgical technique, and future-oriented questions. A second round including 20 statements was used to reassess those statements where borderline agreement was obtained during the first round. The final step consisted of a face-to-face meeting with all participants to present and discuss the results of the analysis.

RESULTS

The 26 experts agreed that robotics is a suitable indication for pelvic floor reconstructive surgery because of the significant technical advantages that it confers relative to standard laparoscopy. Experts considered these advantages particularly important for the execution of complex reconstructive procedures, although the benefits can be found also during less challenging cases. The experts considered the robot safe and effective for pelvic floor reconstruction and generally thought that the additional costs are offset by the increased surgical efficacy.

CONCLUSION

Robotics is a suitable choice for pelvic reconstruction, but this Delphi initiative calls for more research to objectively assess the specific settings where robotic surgery would provide the most benefit.

Long-term outcomes of cable-suspended suture technique versus conventional suture for anterior vaginal wall prolapse: a retrospective cohort study

BACKGROUND

Anterior colporrhaphy (AC) is a conventional surgical repair technique for cystocele but with high recurrence rate. We present a novel technique: Cable-suspended structure (CSS) by non-absorbable suture combined with "bridge" formation in surgical treatment of cystocele. This study aimed to evaluate and compare the long-term outcome of CSS technique for anterior vaginal wall repair with AC.

METHODS

A retrospective review was performed on patients who underwent anterior vaginal wall repair between January 2012 and March 2017 at our center. All the patients were under a follow-up survey. The primary outcomes were objective cure (anterior prolapse POP-Q ≤ stage 1) and subjective cure (no symptoms of bulge or retreatment for prolapse). Secondary outcomes included quality of life (QOL) and patients' satisfaction, outcomes of site-specific POP-Q points Aa, Ba and C, as well as postoperative complications.

RESULTS

Of 91 included participants, 43 underwent AC and 48 underwent CSS. The proportion of sarcrospinous ligament fixation in the CSS group was higher than in the AC group (81.4% vs. 77.1%, P < 0.05). At a median follow-up of 69 months, the CSS group showed significantly higher objective cure rate compared with the AC group (72.9% vs. 51.2%, odds ratio 2.57, 95%CI 1.07-6.16). After adjusting for sarcrospinous ligament fixation, the CSS group still significantly showed higher objective cure rate (adjusted odds ratio 2.88, 95%CI 1.16-7.21). The proportion of the patients with POP-Q 0 stage in the CSS group was particularly higher than the AC group (25% vs. 7.0%, P = 0.025). There was no difference between the groups with respect to subjective cure, patients' satisfaction and postoperative complication.

CONCLUSIONS

The CSS technique showed better objective outcome than AC, however, subjective cure rate did not significantly differ between the two. Future prospective trial with large-scale should confirm the effectiveness and safety of CSS in sexually active women.

Review of Vaginal Approaches to Apical Prolapse Repair

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

To review recent literature and provide up-to-date knowledge on new and important findings in vaginal approaches to apical prolapse surgery.

RECENT FINDINGS

Overall prolapse recurrence rates following transvaginal apical prolapse repair range from 13.7 to 70.3% in medium- to long-term follow-up, while reoperation rates for prolapse recurrence are lower, ranging from 1 to 35%. Subjective prolapse symptoms remain improved despite increasing anatomic failure rates over time. The majority of studies demonstrated improvement in prolapse-related symptoms and quality of life in over 80% of patients 2-3 years after transvaginal repair, with similar outcomes with and without uterine preservation. Contemporary studies continue to demonstrate the safety of transvaginal native tissue repair with most adverse events occurring within the first 2 years. Transvaginal apical prolapse repair is safe and effective. It is associated with long-term improvement in prolapse-related symptoms and quality of life despite increasing rates of prolapse recurrence over time. Subjective outcomes do not correlate with anatomic outcomes.

Comparison of first versus second line sacrocolpopexies in terms of morbidity and mid-term efficacy

To compare pelvic organ prolapse (POP) recurrence and morbidity between first and second line sacrocolpopexies. We conducted a retrospective chart review of all laparoscopic or robotic sacrocolpopexies for POP-Q stage ≥ 2, with or without a history of previous prolapse repair, performed with a similar technique between January 2012 and June 2019 in 3 European Gynecologic Surgery Departments. Patients were separated into two groups: first line sacrocolpopexy (FLS) and second line sacrocolpopexy (SLS). Each patient from the SLS group was age-matched with a patient from the FLS group. The primary outcome measure was reoperation procedures for recurrent POP defined as a symptomatic POP-Q stage ≥ 2 POP in at least one vaginal compartment. Secondary outcomes included operative time, intraoperative organ trauma, intraoperative blood loss, postoperative POP recurrence (operated on or not), global reoperation and mesh-related complications. During this period, 332 patients were included. After age-matching, 170 patients were analyzed: 85 patients in the FLS and SLS groups, respectively. After a mean follow-up of 3 years, there was no statistically significant difference between the two groups in terms of recurrent POP (9.4% versus 10.6%, p = 0.7), recurrent POP reoperation (3.5% versus 5.9% p = 0.7), mesh-related reoperation (0% versus 2.4%, p = 0.5), global reoperation (3.5 versus 8.2%, p = 0.3), operative time (198 ± 67 min versus 193 ± 60 min, p = 0.5), intraoperative complications such as organ injury (4.7% versus 7.1%, p = 0.7) and blood loss > 500 mL (2.4% versus 0%, p = 0.5). Patients who underwent a first or a second line sacrocolpopexy seemed to have similar rates of prolapse recurrence and complications.