title: Cost effectiveness analysis of laparoscopic hysterectomy compared with standard hysterectomy: results from a randomised trial.
abstract: OBJECTIVE
  To assess the cost effectiveness of laparoscopic hysterectomy compared with conventional hysterectomy (abdominal or vaginal).
  
  
  METHODS
  Cost effectiveness analysis based on two parallel trials: laparoscopic (n = 324) compared with vaginal hysterectomy (n = 163); and laparoscopic (n = 573) compared with abdominal hysterectomy (n = 286).
  
  
  METHODS
  1346 women requiring a hysterectomy for reasons other than malignancy.
  
  
  METHODS
  One year costs estimated from NHS perspective. Health outcomes expressed in terms of QALYs based on women's responses to the EQ-5D at baseline and at three points during up to 52 weeks' follow up.
  
  
  RESULTS
  Laparoscopic hysterectomy cost an average of 401 pounds sterling (708 dollars; 571 euros) more (95% confidence interval 271 pounds sterling to 542 pounds sterling) than vaginal hysterectomy but produced little difference in mean QALYs (0.0015, -0.015 to 0.018). Mean differences in cost and QALYs generated an incremental cost per QALY gained of 267 333 pounds sterling (471 789 dollars; 380 437 euros). The probability that laparoscopic hysterectomy is cost effective was below 50% for a large range of values of willingness to pay for an additional QALY. Laparoscopic hysterectomy cost an average of 186 pounds sterling (328 dollars; 265 euros) more than abdominal hysterectomy, although 95% confidence intervals crossed zero (-26 pounds sterling to 375 pounds sterling); there was little difference in mean QALYs (0.007, -0.008 to 0.023), resulting in an incremental cost per QALY gained of 26 571 pounds sterling (46 893 dollars; 37 813 euros). If the NHS is willing to pay 30 000 pounds sterling for an additional QALY, the probability that laparoscopic hysterectomy is cost effective is 56%.
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  Laparoscopic hysterectomy is not cost effective relative to vaginal hysterectomy. Its cost effectiveness relative to the abdominal procedure is finely balanced.
authors.affiliation: Centre for Health Economics, University of York, Heslington, York YO10 5DD. mjs23@york.ac.uk
authors.forename: Mark
authors.initials: M
authors.lastname: Sculpher
authors.forename: Andrea
authors.initials: A
authors.lastname: Manca
authors.forename: Jason
authors.initials: J
authors.lastname: Abbott
authors.forename: Jayne
authors.initials: J
authors.lastname: Fountain
authors.forename: Su
authors.initials: S
authors.lastname: Mason
authors.forename: Ray
authors.initials: R
authors.lastname: Garry
mesh_terms: D003362:Cost-Benefit Analysis; D005260:Female; D005500:Follow-Up Studies; D006295:Health Resources / Q000191:economics / Q000706:statistics & numerical data; D017721:Hospital Costs; D006801:Humans; D007044:Hysterectomy / Q000191:economics* / Q000379:methods; D010535:Laparoscopy / Q000191:economics* / Q000379:methods; D011788:Quality of Life; D019057:Quality-Adjusted Life Years; D016896:Treatment Outcome