IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0336030.html

Economic evaluation of Manchester procedure versus sacrospinous hysteropexy: A follow-up analysis of a randomized clinical trial

Author

Listed:
  • Sascha F M Schulten
  • Rosa A Enklaar
  • Mirjam Weemhoff
  • Hugo WF van Eijndhoven
  • Sanne AL van Leijsen
  • Eddy MM Adang
  • Kirsten B Kluivers
  • for the SAM study group

Abstract

Background: Pelvic organ prolapse is a common condition in females. The reported lifetime risk of undergoing pelvic organ prolapse surgery is estimated to affect up to 20% of women. Recently, a higher level of surgical success after the Manchester procedure has been shown compared to sacrospinous hysteropexy. As the costs in healthcare are rising, it is also important to consider the resources and associated cost implications of the choice between these two procedures. An economic evaluation was conducted to compare the alternative costs and benefits. Methods: An economic evaluation alongside a randomized controlled trial (RCT) was performed from a societal and healthcare perspective at 2 years of follow-up according to the intention to treat principle. The RCT was a multicenter, randomized, open label trial, executed in 26 Dutch hospitals. 434 women were randomly assigned to the Manchester procedure or sacrospinous hysteropexy. Direct costing data were obtained from electronic case report forms and Medical Consumption Questionnaires. Indirect costing data were obtained by the Productivity Cost Questionnaire. Quality-adjusted Life Years (QALYs) were calculated from the scores on the Euroqol5D-5L questionnaire. Mean cost differences and their 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated. Results: From the societal perspective, the Manchester procedure was significantly less expensive than sacrospinous hysteropexy, with a mean difference of 1458.34 euros (95% CI −2746.16 to −170.52). There was no significant difference in the number of QALYs gained over period of 2 years between the arms: 1.67 QALYs (95% confidence interval (95% CI) 1.63 to 1.71) for the sacrospinous hysteropexy group and 1.68 QALYs (95% CI 1.65 to 1.72) for the Manchester procedure group (p = 0.346). Conclusions: During two years of follow-up the Manchester procedure and sacrospinous hysteropexy showed no statistically significant different effectiveness in terms of QALYs gained against significantly higher costs for sacrospinous hysteropexy.

Suggested Citation

  • Sascha F M Schulten & Rosa A Enklaar & Mirjam Weemhoff & Hugo WF van Eijndhoven & Sanne AL van Leijsen & Eddy MM Adang & Kirsten B Kluivers & for the SAM study group, 2025. "Economic evaluation of Manchester procedure versus sacrospinous hysteropexy: A follow-up analysis of a randomized clinical trial," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 20(11), pages 1-12, November.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0336030
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0336030
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0336030
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0336030&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0336030?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0336030. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.