Eric R. Sokol, MD

Publication Details

  • To sling or not to sling at time of abdominal sacrocolpopexy: a cost-effectiveness analysis. journal of urology Richardson, M. L., Elliott, C. S., Shaw, J. G., Comiter, C. V., Chen, B., Sokol, E. R. 2013; 190 (4): 1306-1312


    OBJECTIVES: To compare the cost-effectiveness of three strategies for use of a mid-urethral sling (MUS) to prevent occult stress urinary incontinence (SUI) in those undergoing abdominal sacrocolpopexy (ASC). METHODS: Using decision-analysis modeling, we compared cost-effectiveness over a 1 year post-operative time period of three treatment approaches: 1) ASC alone with deferred option for MUS; 2) ASC with universal concomitant MUS; and 3) preoperative urodynamic study (UDS) for selective MUS. Using published data, we modeled probabilities of SUI after ASC with or without MUS, the predictive value of UDS to detect occult SUI, and the likelihood of complications after MUS. Costs were derived from Medicare 2010 reimbursement rates. The main outcome modeled was incremental cost effectiveness ratio (ICER) per quality-adjusted life years (QALY) gained. In addition to base-case analysis, one-way sensitivity analyses were performed. RESULTS: In our model, universally performing MUS at the time of ASC was the most cost-effective approach, with an incremental cost per QALY gained of $2867 when compared to performing ASC alone. Preoperative UDS was more costly and less effective than universally performing intraoperative MUS. The cost-effectiveness of ASC + MUS was robust to sensitivity analysis, with a cost-effectiveness ratio consistently below $20,000 per QALY. CONCLUSIONS: Universal concomitant MUS is the most cost-effective prophylaxis strategy for occult SUI in women undergoing ASC. The use of pre-operative UDS to guide MUS placement at the time of ASC is not cost-effective.

    View details for DOI 10.1016/j.juro.2013.03.046

    View details for PubMedID 23524201

Stanford Medicine Resources:

Footer Links: