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
Randomized Controlled Trial
. 2023 May 1;29(5):461-468.
doi: 10.1097/SPV.0000000000001306. Epub 2022 Dec 17.

Cost Effectiveness of Concurrent Midurethral Sling at the Time of Prolapse Repair: Results From a Randomized Controlled Trial

Rui Wang  1 , Paul Tulikangas, Elisabeth C Sappenfield
Affiliations
Randomized Controlled Trial

Cost Effectiveness of Concurrent Midurethral Sling at the Time of Prolapse Repair: Results From a Randomized Controlled Trial

Rui Wang et al. Urogynecology (Phila). .

Abstract

Importance: The relative cost per improvement in quality of life can help guide decisions about adding a midurethral sling at the time of prolapse surgery.

Objective: This study aimed to assess the cost-effectiveness of prophylactic midurethral slings placed at the time of prolapse surgery to reduce de novo urinary incontinence based on a randomized controlled trial.

Study design: Costs and effectiveness were collected as part of a planned secondary analysis from the Outcomes following vaginal Prolapse repair and mid Urethral Sling (OPUS) trial, where 337 women without symptomatic stress urinary incontinence were randomly assigned to a midurethral sling or sham incisions during vaginal prolapse surgery. Within-trial cost-effectiveness analysis was performed from the societal perspective. Effectiveness was measured in quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) and de novo urinary incontinence. We calculated incremental cost-effectiveness ratios and cost-effectiveness acceptability curves.

Results: Within-trial societal costs were higher for the sling group than for the control group ($18,170 [95% confidence interval (CI), $16,420-$19,920] vs $15,700 [95% CI, $14,110-$17300], P = 0.041). The changes in QALY were 0.04 (95% CI, 0.02-0.06) versus 0.03 (95% CI, 0.02-0.05; P = 0.54). The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for prophylactic sling was $309,620/QALY. This is above the generally accepted range of willingness-to-pay thresholds of $50,000 to $150,000/QALY. At 1 year, urinary incontinence was more common in the control group, and the cost to prevent 1 case was $91. The probability that prophylactic sling is cost-effective is 24%.

Conclusions: Prophylactic sling placed during vaginal prolapse surgery reduced the rate of de novo urinary incontinence, but was not cost-effective.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors have declared they have no conflicts of interest.

Comment in

References

    1. Wilson L, Brown JS, Shind GP, et al. Annual direct cost of urinary incontinence. Obstet Gynecol 2001;98(3):398–406. doi:10.1016/S0029-7844(01)01464-8. - DOI
    1. Subak LL, Brown JS, Kraus SR, et al. The “costs” of urinary incontinence for women. Obstet Gynecol 2006;107(4):908–916. doi:10.1097/01.AOG.0000206213.48334.09. - DOI
    1. Wei JT, Nygaard I, Richter HE, et al. A midurethral sling to reduce incontinence after vaginal prolapse repair. N Engl J Med 2012;366(25):2358–2367. doi:10.1056/nejmoa1111967. - DOI
    1. Brubaker L, Nygaard I, Richter HE, et al. Two-year outcomes after sacrocolpopexy with and without burch to prevent stress urinary incontinence. Obstet Gynecol 2008;112(1):49–55. doi:10.1097/AOG.0b013e3181778d2a. - DOI
    1. Dunivan GC, Sussman AL, Jelovsek JE, et al. Gaining the patient perspective on pelvic floor disorders' surgical adverse events. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2019;220(2):185.e1–185.e10. doi:10.1016/j.ajog.2018.10.033. - DOI

Publication types

LinkOut - more resources