Suppr超能文献

经阴道脱垂手术时预防性耻骨后吊带的成本效益。

Cost-effectiveness of prophylactic retropubic sling at the time of vaginal prolapse surgery.

机构信息

Division of Female Pelvic Medicine and Reconstructive Surgery, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, IL.

Section of Urogynecology, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Providence Saint John's Health Center, Santa Monica, CA.

出版信息

Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2022 Sep;227(3):471.e1-471.e7. doi: 10.1016/j.ajog.2022.05.044. Epub 2022 May 26.

Abstract

BACKGROUND

Prophylactic midurethral sling placement at the time of prolapse repair significantly reduces the risk for de novo stress urinary incontinence, but it is associated with some small but significant morbidities. Because there has not been a standardized approach to midurethral sling utilization, decision analysis provides a method to evaluate the cost and effectiveness associated with varying midurethral sling placement strategies in addressing the risk for de novo stress urinary incontinence.

OBJECTIVE

We aimed to compare the cost effectiveness of the 3 midurethral sling utilization strategies in treating de novo stress urinary incontinence 1 year after vaginal prolapse repair. The 3 approaches are (1) staged strategy in which prolapse repair is done without prophylactic midurethral sling placement, (2) universal sling placement in which prolapse repair is accompanied by prophylactic midurethral sling placement, and (3) selective sling placement in which prolapse repair is accompanied by prophylactic midurethral sling placement only in patients with a positive prolapse-reduced cough stress test.

STUDY DESIGN

We created a decision analysis model to compare staged strategy, universal sling placement, and selective sling placement. We modeled probabilities of de novo stress urinary incontinence, patients choosing subsequent midurethral sling surgery for de novo stress urinary incontinence, and outcomes related to midurethral sling placement. De novo stress urinary incontinence rates were determined for each strategy from published data. The likelihood of patients with de novo stress urinary incontinence choosing midurethral sling surgery as their first-line treatment was also determined from the literature, and this scenario was only applied to patients without prophylactic midurethral sling placement at their index prolapse repair. Finally, outcomes related to midurethral sling placement, including recurrent or persistent stress urinary incontinence, voiding dysfunction requiring sling lysis, mesh exposure requiring excision, and de novo overactive bladder requiring medications, were all derived from publicly available data. All midurethral sling placement procedures were assumed to be retropubic. The costs for each procedure were obtained from the 2020 Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services Physician Fee Schedule or from previous literature with convertion to 2020 equivalent US dollar prices using the Consumer Price Index. The primary outcome was modeled as the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio. We performed multiple 1-way sensitivity analyses to assess model robustness.

RESULTS

The lowest-cost strategy was the staged strategy, which cost $1051.70 per patient, followed by $1093.75 for selective sling placement and $1125.54 for universal sling placement. The selective sling approach, however, had the highest health utility value; therefore, universal sling placement was dominated by selective sling placement because it is both less costly and more effective. When compared with the staged strategy, selective sling placement was cost effective with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $2664 per quality adjusted life-years, meeting the predetermined threshold. In multiple 1-way sensitivity analyses, the variable with the largest effect was the percentage of patients electing to undergo subsequent midurethral sling surgery for de novo stress urinary incontinence after the index surgery. Only when this proportion exceeded 62% did universal sling placement become the cost-effective option because selective sling placement surpassed the predetermined incremental cost-effectiveness ratio threshold and became dominated.

CONCLUSION

Selective sling placement was the preferred and cost-effective strategy in treating de novo stress urinary incontinence 1 year after vaginal prolapse repair. Surgeons should counsel their patients preoperatively regarding the possibility of de novo stress urinary incontinence after prolapse repair, as well as on the benefits and risks of prophylactic midurethral sling placement surgery.

摘要

背景

在脱垂修复时预防性放置尿道中段吊带可显著降低新发压力性尿失禁的风险,但也存在一些小但有意义的并发症。由于没有标准化的尿道中段吊带使用方法,决策分析提供了一种评估不同尿道中段吊带放置策略在新发压力性尿失禁风险方面的成本效益的方法。

目的

我们旨在比较 3 种尿道中段吊带利用策略在阴道脱垂修复后 1 年治疗新发压力性尿失禁的成本效益。这 3 种方法是(1)分期策略,即脱垂修复时不预防性放置尿道中段吊带,(2)普遍放置吊带,即脱垂修复时伴有预防性尿道中段吊带放置,(3)选择性放置吊带,即脱垂修复时仅在脱垂减轻咳嗽压力试验阳性的患者中预防性放置尿道中段吊带。

研究设计

我们创建了一个决策分析模型来比较分期策略、普遍放置吊带和选择性放置吊带。我们对新发压力性尿失禁的概率、患者选择后续尿道中段吊带手术治疗新发压力性尿失禁的概率以及与尿道中段吊带放置相关的结果进行建模。从已发表的数据中确定了每种策略的新发压力性尿失禁发生率。从文献中还确定了患有新发压力性尿失禁的患者选择尿道中段吊带手术作为一线治疗的可能性,并且仅适用于其索引脱垂修复时未预防性放置尿道中段吊带的患者。最后,与尿道中段吊带放置相关的结果,包括复发性或持续性压力性尿失禁、需要吊带松解的排尿功能障碍、需要切除的网片暴露、需要药物治疗的新发膀胱过度活动症,均来自公开可用的数据。所有尿道中段吊带放置手术均假定为经耻骨后入路。每个手术的费用均来自 2020 年医疗保险和医疗补助服务中心医师费用表,或以前的文献,使用消费者价格指数换算为 2020 年的等效美元价格。主要结果为增量成本效益比。我们进行了多次 1 次单因素敏感性分析,以评估模型的稳健性。

结果

成本最低的策略是分期策略,每位患者的成本为 1051.70 美元,其次是选择性吊带放置策略的 1093.75 美元和普遍吊带放置策略的 1125.54 美元。然而,选择性吊带方法具有最高的健康效用值;因此,选择性吊带放置策略优于普遍吊带放置策略,因为它既更便宜又更有效。与分期策略相比,选择性吊带放置的增量成本效益比为每质量调整生命年 2664 美元,符合预定阈值。在多次 1 次单因素敏感性分析中,对结果影响最大的变量是索引手术后选择接受后续尿道中段吊带手术治疗新发压力性尿失禁的患者比例。只有当这一比例超过 62%时,普遍吊带放置才成为具有成本效益的选择,因为选择性吊带放置超过了预定的增量成本效益比阈值并成为主导。

结论

在阴道脱垂修复后 1 年治疗新发压力性尿失禁时,选择性吊带放置是首选且具有成本效益的策略。外科医生应在术前向患者咨询脱垂修复后新发压力性尿失禁的可能性,以及预防性尿道中段吊带放置手术的益处和风险。

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验