Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Clinical Trial
. 2004 Jan 17;328(7432):134.
doi: 10.1136/bmj.37942.601331.EE. Epub 2004 Jan 7.

Cost effectiveness analysis of laparoscopic hysterectomy compared with standard hysterectomy: results from a randomised trial

Affiliations
Clinical Trial

Cost effectiveness analysis of laparoscopic hysterectomy compared with standard hysterectomy: results from a randomised trial

Mark Sculpher et al. BMJ. .

Abstract

Objective: To assess the cost effectiveness of laparoscopic hysterectomy compared with conventional hysterectomy (abdominal or vaginal).

Design: 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).

Participants: 1346 women requiring a hysterectomy for reasons other than malignancy.

Main outcome measure: 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.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Cost effectiveness acceptability curves for laparoscopic hysterectomy v conventional hysterectomy (abdominal or vaginal). ICER (incremental cost effectiveness ratio) for laparoscopic hysterectomy is not shown as it exceeds £200 000

Comment in

References

    1. Vessey MP, Villard-Mackintosh L, McPherson K, Coulter A, Yeates D. The epidemiology of hysterectomy: findings in a large cohort study. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 1992;99: 402-7. - PubMed
    1. Lepine LA, Hillis SD, Marchbanks PA, Koonin LM, Morrow B, Kieke BA, et al. Hysterectomy surveillance—United States 1980-1993. MMWR Surveill Summ 1997;46: 1-15. - PubMed
    1. Lowell L, Kessler AA. Laparoscopically assisted vaginal hysterectomy—a suitable substitute for abdominal hysterectomy? J Reprod Med 2000;45: 738-42. - PubMed
    1. Schneider A, Merker A, Martin C, Michels W, Krause N. Laparoscopically assisted vaginal hysterectomy as an alternative to abdominal hysterectomy in patients with fibroids. Arch Gynecol Obstet 1997;259: 79-85. - PubMed
    1. Chapron C, Fernandez B, Dubuisson JB. Total hysterectomy for benign pathologies: direct costs comparison between laparoscopic and abdominal hysterectomy. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 2000;89: 141-7. - PubMed

Publication types