4.5 Article

Cost-Effectiveness of Endoscopic Versus Microscopic Transsphenoidal Surgery for Pituitary Adenoma

Journal

WORLD NEUROSURGERY
Volume 110, Issue -, Pages E496-E503

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.wneu.2017.11.046

Keywords

Cost-utility analysis; Endoscopic surgery; Pituitary adenoma; Quality of life; Transsphenoidal surgery

Ask authors/readers for more resources

BACKGROUND: Endoscopic transsphenoidal surgery (ETPS) has become increasingly popular for resection of pituitary tumors, whereas microscopic transsphenoidal surgery (MTPS) also remains a commonly used approach. The economic sustainability of new techniques and technologies is rarely evaluated in the neurosurgical skull base literature. The aim of this study was to determine the cost-effectiveness of ETPS compared with MTPS. METHODS: A Markov model was constructed to conduct a cost-utility analysis of ETPS versus MTPS from a single-payer health care perspective. Data were obtained from previously published outcomes studies. Costs were based on Medicare reimbursement rates, considering covariates such as complications, length of stay, and operative time. The base case adopted a 2-year follow-up period. Univariate and multivariate sensitivity analyses were conducted. RESULTS: On average, ETPS costs $143 less and generates 0.014 quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) compared with MTPS over 2 years. The incremental costeffectiveness ratio (ICER) is -$10,214 per QALY, suggesting economic dominance. The QALY benefit increased to 0.105 when modeled to 10 years, suggesting that ETPS becomes even more favorable over time. CONCLUSIONS: ETPS appears to be cost-effective when compared with MTPS because the ICER falls below the commonly accepted $50,000 per QALY benchmark. Model limitations and assumptions affect the generalizability of the conclusion; however, ongoing efforts to improve rhinologic morbidity related to ETPS would appear to further augment the marginal cost savings and QALYs gained. Further research on the cost-effectiveness of ETPS using prospective data is warranted.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available