Cost-effectiveness of the triple procedure - phacovitrectomy with posterior capsulotomy compared to phacovitrectomy and sequential procedures.

PURPOSE

To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of the triple procedure (phacovitrectomy + posterior capsulotomy, PhacoPPVc) compared to the double- (phacovitrectomy, PhacoPPV) or single sequential procedures.

METHODS

Prospective study on 31 eyes from 31 patients (mean age: 72.1 ± 9.1 years; 55% females) was performed with a preoperative decision to undergo only pars plana vitrectomy (PPV) (26%) or PhacoPPV (74%) and/or posterior capsulotomy based upon presence or absence of lens opacification or pseudophakia. Time during and between surgeries, surgical procedure codes, medical and transport costs, outcome and likelihood of complications after surgery were all included in the analysis. Societal perspectives and visual acuity were considered as measures of quality of adjusted life years (QALYs).

RESULTS

About 23 eyes underwent triple procedure and eight eyes underwent vitrectomy only (mean surgery times: 35.9 and 24.0 min, respectively). Posterior capsulotomy took on average 30 s, while preparation and cataract procedure took 13.0 min. The patients travelled on average 80km (average cost: $280.12) to the surgery unit. The average reimbursement fee for the day procedures ranged between $174.17 (YAG capsulotomy; Diagnosis Related Group (DRG): 0.034), $1045.48 (Phaco + intraocular lens (IOL); DRG: 0.204) and $1701.32 (PPV; DRG: 0.332). The combined procedures excluded lens and laser reimbursements, while the calculated reimbursements for the double/triple procedures were $2713.08/$2901.45, respectively, without significant loss of QALYs. PhacoPPVc was found to be unequivocally cost-effective, while PhacoPPV remained cost saving compared to sequential procedures.

CONCLUSION

This study confirms that the triple procedure has benefits to the patients, health institution and surgeon. For patients, it saves them travel and healing time; for health institution, it justifies the calculated higher costs and need for higher reimbursement for the double/triple procedures, which are cost saving.