Treatment strategies for pelvic organ prolapse: A cost-effectiveness analysis

International Urogynecology Journal

Volumn 22, Issue 5, 2011, Pages 507-515

  Hullfish, Kathie L ^a   Trowbridge, Elisa R ^a   Stukenborg, George J ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA HEALTH SYSTEM   (United States)

Author keywords

Cost effectiveness; Pelvic organ prolapse

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; CONTROLLED STUDY; COST EFFECTIVENESS ANALYSIS; HYSTERECTOMY; MARKOV DECISION ANALYSIS MODEL; MEDICAL DECISION MAKING; MODEL; PELVIC ORGAN PROLAPSE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; QUALITY ADJUSTED LIFE YEAR; SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS; VAGINA PESSARY; VAGINA RECONSTRUCTION;

EID: 79959951175     PISSN: 09373462     EISSN: 14333023     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s00192-011-1383-6     Document Type: Article

References (26)

1. Olsen AL, Smith VJ, Bergstrom JO, Colling JC, Clark AL (1997) Epidemiology of surgically managed pelvic organ prolapse and urinary incontinence. Obstet Gynecol 89:501-506 (Pubitemid 27133519)
2. Nygaard IE, McCreery R, Brubaker L et al (2004) Abdominal sacrocolpopexy: a comprehensive review. Obstet Gynecol 104:805-823 (Pubitemid 40458813)
3. Benson JT, Lucente V, McClellan E (1996) Vaginal versus abdominal reconstructive surgery for the treatment of pelvic support defects: a prospective randomized study with long-term outcome evaluation. Am J Obstet Gynecol 175:1418-1421, discussion 1421-1422
4. Di Marco DS, Chow GK, Gettman MT, Elliott DS (2004) Robotic-assisted laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy for treatment of vaginal vault prolapse. Urology 63:373-376 (Pubitemid 38234440)
5. Elliott DS, Frank I, Dimarco DS, Chow GK (2004) Gynecologic use of robotically assisted laparoscopy: sacrocolpopexy for the treatment of high-grade vaginal vault prolapse. Am J Surg 188:52S-56S (Pubitemid 39336473)
6. Daneshgari F, Kefer JC, Moore C, Kaouk J (2007) Robotic abdominal sacrocolpopexy/sacrouteropexy repair of advanced female pelvic organ prolaspe (POP): utilizing POP-quantification-based staging and outcomes. BJU Int 100:875-879 (Pubitemid 47360195)
7. Geller EJ, Siddiqui NY, Wu JM, Visco AG (2008) Short-term outcomes of robotic sacrocolpopexy compared with abdominal sacrocolpopexy. Obstet Gynecol 112:1201-1206
8. Avorn J (2009) Debate about funding comparative-effectiveness research. N Engl J Med 360:1927-1929
9. Garber AM, Tunis SR (2009) Does comparative-effectiveness research threaten personalized medicine? N Engl J Med 360:1925-1927
10. Naik AD, Petersen LA (2009) The neglected purpose of comparative effectiveness research. N Engl J Med 360:1929-1931
11. Patel M, O'Sullivan D, Tulikangas PK (2009) A comparison of costs for abdominal, laparoscopic, and robot-assisted sacral colpopexy. Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct 20:223-228
12. Bump RC, Mattiasson A, Bo K et al (1996) The standardization of terminology of female pelvic organ prolapse and pelvic floor dysfunction. Am J Obstet Gynecol 175:10-17 (Pubitemid 26282199)
13. Clemons JL, Aguilar VC, Sokol ER, Jackson ND, Myers DL (2004) Patient characteristics that are associated with continued pessary use versus surgery after 1 year. Am J Obstet Gynecol 191 (1):159-164 (Pubitemid 39077970)
14. Romanzi LJ, Chaikin DC, Blavias JG (1999) The effect of genital prolapse on voiding. J Urol 161:581-586
15. Mittmann N, Trakas K, Risebrough N, Liu BA (1999) Utility scores for chronic conditions in a community-dwelling population. Pharmacoeconomics 15:369-376 (Pubitemid 29190028)
16. HCUP databases Healthcare cost and utilization project (HCUP). Agency for healthcare research and quality, Rockville, MD. Available at http://www.hcup-us.ahrq.gov/nisoverview.jsp. Accessed July 2010
17. Whalen D, Houchens R, Elixhauser A (2004) HCUP nationwide inpatient sample (NIS) comparison report. HCUP methods series report # 2007-03 online. U.S. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. Available at http://www.hcup-us.ahrq.gov/reports/methods.jsp. Accessed 2 February2007
18. Fenwick E, O'Brien BJ, Briggs A (2004) Cost-effectiveness acceptability curves - facts, fallacies and frequently asked questions. Health Econ 13:405-415 (Pubitemid 38660390)
19. Khuri SF (2006) Safety, quality, and the national surgical quality improvement program. Am Surg 72:994-998, discussion 1021-1030, 1133-1148 (Pubitemid 351837921)
20. Clemons JL, Aguilar VC, Tillinghast TA, Jackson ND, Myers DL (2004) Risk factors associated with an unsuccessful pessary fitting trial in women with pelvic organ prolapse. Am J Obstet Gynecol 190(2):345-350 (Pubitemid 38249227)
21. Hanson LA, Schulz JA, Flood CG, Cooley B, Tam F (2006) Vaginal pessaries in managing women with pelvic organ prolapse and urinary incontinence: patient characteristics and factors contributing to success. Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct 17(2):155-159 (Pubitemid 43192994)
22. Mutone MF, Terry C, Hale DS, Benson JT (2005) Factors which influence the short-term success of pessary management of pelvic organ prolapse. Am J Obstet Gynecol 193(1):89-94 (Pubitemid 40991831)
23. Komesu YM, Rogers RG, Rode MA, Craig EC, Gallegos KA, Montoya AR et al (2007) Pelvic floor symptom changes in pessary users. Am J Obstet Gynecol 197(6):620.e1-620.e6
24. Diwadkar GB, Barber MD, Feiner B, Maher C, Jelovsek JE (2009) Complication and reoperation rates after apical vaginal prolapse surgical repair: a systematic review. Obstet Gynecol 113 (2pt 1):367-373, with appendix
25. Heit M, Rosenquist C, Culligan P, Graham C, Murphy MMD, Shott S (2003) Predicting treatment choice for patients with pelvic organ prolapse. Obstet Gynecol 101:1279-1284 (Pubitemid 36694356)
26. Ganatra AM, Rozet F, Sanchez-Salas R, Barret E, Galiano M, Cathelineau X, Vallancien G (2009) The current status of laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy: a review. Eur Urol 55(5):1089-1103