Vaginal hysteropexy compared with vaginal hysterectomy with apical suspension for the treatment of pelvic organ prolapse: A 5‐year cost‐effectiveness Markov model

Abstract

AbstractObjectiveOur objective was to perform a 5‐year cost‐effectiveness analysis of transvaginal hysteropexy (HP) via sacrospinous ligament fixation (SS) or uterosacral ligament suspension (US) versus vaginal hysterectomy (VH) with apical suspension via sacrospinous ligament fixation (SS) or uterosacral ligament suspension (US) for the treatment of uterine prolapse.DesignA decision analytic model assessed the cost‐effectiveness of the surgical intervention over a 5‐year horizon.SettingThis model was constructed using TreeAge® software.Population or SampleHealthy women undergoing surgery for uterine prolapse were modeled.MethodsA Markov model was constructed to simulate the possible recurrence of prolapse. Recurrence rates, repeat surgery for surgical failures and complication rates were modeled. Base case, sensitivity analyses and probabilistic modeling were performed.Main Outcome MeasuresThe primary outcome was the incremental cost‐effectiveness ratio (ICER) of <$100 000 per quality‐adjusted life year (QALY).ResultsUsing the available prolapse recurrence rates and repeat surgery rates in the literature, both HP‐SS and HP‐US are cost‐effective at a willingness‐to‐pay (WTP) threshold of <$100 000 per QALY. The incremental cost‐effectiveness ratio (ICER) for HP‐US compared to HP‐SS is $90 738.14, while VH‐US and VH‐SS are both dominated strategies. HP‐US is the optimal cost‐effective strategy but decays exponentially with increasing probability of prolapse recurrence and need for repeat surgery after failed hysteropexy. The cost‐effectiveness acceptability curve (CEAC) favors sacrospinous hysteropexy until reaching a WTP threshold between $90 000 and $100 000.ConclusionHysteropexy surgical strategies are cost‐effective transvaginal surgical approaches for uterine prolapse. Vaginal hysterectomy with apical suspension becomes more cost‐effective with increasing probability of prolapse recurrence and need for repeat surgery after failed hysteropexy. Given the variability of prolapse recurrence rates in the literature, more comparative studies are needed to understand the cost‐effectiveness relationship between these different surgical approaches.