Is Preoperative Type and Screen High-value Care? A Cost-effectiveness Analysis of Performing Preoperative Type and Screen Prior to Urogynecological Surgery

INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS

Routine preoperative type and screen (T&S) is often ordered prior to urogynecological surgery but is rarely used. We aimed to assess the cost effectiveness of routine preoperative T&S and determine transfusion and transfusion reaction rates that make universal preoperative T&S cost effective.

METHODS

A decision tree model from the health care sector perspective compared costs (2020 US dollars) and effectiveness (quality-adjusted life-years, QALYs) of universal preoperative T&S (cross-matched blood) vs no T&S (O negative blood). Our primary outcome was the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). Input parameters included transfusion rates, transfusion reaction incidence, transfusion reaction severity rates, and costs of management. The base case included a transfusion probability of 1.26%; a transfusion reaction probability of 0.0013% with or 0.4% without T&S; and with a transfusion reaction, a 50% probability of inpatient management and 0.0042 annual disutility. Costs were estimated from Medicare national reimbursement schedules. The time horizon was surgery/admission. We assumed a willingness-to-pay threshold of $150,000/QALY. One- and two-way sensitivity analyses were performed.

RESULTS

The base case and one-way sensitivity analyses demonstrated that routine preoperative T&S is not cost effective, with an ICER of $63,721,632/QALY. The optimal strategy did not change when base case cost, transfusion probability, or transfusion reaction disutility were varied. Threshold analysis revealed that if transfusion reaction probability without T&S is >12%, routine T&S becomes cost effective. Scenarios identified as cost effective in the threshold and sensitivity analyses fell outside reported rates for urogynecological surgery.

CONCLUSIONS

Within broad ranges, preoperative T&S is not cost effective, which supports re-evaluating routine T&S prior to urogynecological surgery.

Safety and perioperative morbidity of laparoscopic sacropexy: a systematic analysis and a comparison with laparoscopic hysterectomy

PURPOSE

The high prevalence of Pelvic Organ Prolapse (POP) along with the demographic trend of the ageing population raises the value of sacropexy in the treatment of POP. Thus, efforts to decrease risks associated with this procedure have the potential for public health impact. We examined the perioperative morbidity of laparoscopic sacropexy regarding the surgical access and compared it with the morbidity of one of the most common gynecological procedure, the laparoscopic hysterectomy. Our aim was to prove the safety of laparoscopic sacropexy.

METHODS

A retrospective evaluation of 80 consecutive laparoscopic sacropexies performed from Sept. 2012 until Oct. 2014 and 126 laparoscopic hysterectomies for a benign indication were undertaken. We assessed the anatomical outcome and the intra- and postoperative complications using the classification system according to Clavien-Dindo (CD).

RESULTS

Apical success rate after sacropexy was 100% and global success rate was 95% (POP-Q stage ≤1). The decline in hemoglobin was low in both groups and showed no statistically significant differences. Both operative time (P < 0.001) and the duration of hospitalization (P < 0.001) were longer in case of a sacropexy. Although overall intraoperative complications seemed more frequent during a sacropexy, differences were not statistically significant. Both early and late postoperative complications showed a higher rate of mild complications (CD-I/II) and a lower rate of severe complications (CD-IIIa/IIIb) after a sacropexy. The differences were not statistically significant.

CONCLUSION

The laparoscopic sacropexy represents a safe procedure with good anatomical outcome. Despite higher technical severity, it doesn't seem to bare higher risks for perioperative morbidity than the laparoscopic hysterectomy does.