Cost analysis of surgical treatment for pelvic organ prolapse by laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy or transvaginal mesh.
OBJECTIVE
The objective of this study is to compare direct costs of repairing pelvic organ prolapse by laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy (LS) against vaginal mesh (VM). Our hypothesis is the correction of pelvic organ prolapse by LS has a similar cost per procedure compared to VM.


METHODS
We made a retrospective comparative analysis of medium cost per procedure of first 69 consecutive LS versus first 69 consecutive VM surgeries. We calculate direct cost for each procedure: structural outlays, personal, operating room occupation, hospital stay, perishable or inventory material and prosthetic material. Medium cost per procedure were calculated for each group, with a 95% confidence interval.


RESULTS
LS group has a higher cost related to a longer length of surgery, higher operating room occupation and anesthesia; VM group has a higher cost due to longer hospital stay and more expensive prosthetic material. Globally, LS has a lower medium cost per procedure in comparison to VM (5,985.7 €±1,550.8 € vs. 6,534.3 €±1,015.5 €), although it did not achieve statistical signification.


CONCLUSIONS
In our midst, pelvic organ prolapse surgical correction by LS has at least similar cost per procedure compared to VM.
Servicio de Urología, Hospital Universitario Ramón y Cajal, Universidad de Alcalá de Henares, Instituto Ramón y Cajal de Investigación Sanitaria (IRYCIS), Madrid, España. Electronic address: davidcarracedocalvo@gmail.com.
D
D
Carracedo
Servicio de Urología, Hospital Universitario Ramón y Cajal, Universidad de Alcalá de Henares, Instituto Ramón y Cajal de Investigación Sanitaria (IRYCIS), Madrid, España.
L
L
López-Fando
Servicio de Urología, Hospital Universitario Ramón y Cajal, Universidad de Alcalá de Henares, Instituto Ramón y Cajal de Investigación Sanitaria (IRYCIS), Madrid, España.
M D
MD
Sánchez
Servicio de Urología, Hospital Universitario Ramón y Cajal, Universidad de Alcalá de Henares, Instituto Ramón y Cajal de Investigación Sanitaria (IRYCIS), Madrid, España.
M Á
MÁ
Jiménez
Servicio de Urología, Hospital Universitario Ramón y Cajal, Universidad de Alcalá de Henares, Instituto Ramón y Cajal de Investigación Sanitaria (IRYCIS), Madrid, España.
J M
JM
Gómez
Servicio de Urología, Hospital Universitario Ramón y Cajal, Universidad de Alcalá de Henares, Instituto Ramón y Cajal de Investigación Sanitaria (IRYCIS), Madrid, España.
I
I
Laso
Servicio de Urología, Hospital Universitario Ramón y Cajal, Universidad de Alcalá de Henares, Instituto Ramón y Cajal de Investigación Sanitaria (IRYCIS), Madrid, España.
M Á
MÁ
Rodríguez
Servicio de Urología, Hospital Universitario Ramón y Cajal, Universidad de Alcalá de Henares, Instituto Ramón y Cajal de Investigación Sanitaria (IRYCIS), Madrid, España.
F J
FJ
Burgos
D000328:Adult; D000368:Aged; D000369:Aged, 80 and over; D002584:Cervix Uteri; D003365:Costs and Cost Analysis; D005260:Female; D013509:Gynecologic Surgical Procedures / Q000191:economics / Q000379:methods; D006801:Humans; D010535:Laparoscopy / Q000191:economics*; D008875:Middle Aged; D056887:Pelvic Organ Prolapse / Q000601:surgery*; D012189:Retrospective Studies; D012447:Sacrum; D013526:Surgical Mesh / Q000191:economics*; D014621:Vagina
Análisis de costes; Colposacropexia laparoscópica; Cost analysis; Laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy; Malla transvaginal; Pelvic organ prolapse; Prolapso de órganos pélvicos; Vaginal mesh