Anouk Benseler, Zi Ying Zhao, Muhammad Harris Sheikh, Brian Chan, George Tomlinson, Colleen D McDermott
{"title":"盆底手术后膀胱导尿的成本分析。","authors":"Anouk Benseler, Zi Ying Zhao, Muhammad Harris Sheikh, Brian Chan, George Tomlinson, Colleen D McDermott","doi":"10.1097/SPV.0000000000001519","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Importance: </strong>Approximately 15-45% of female patients develop transient postoperative urinary retention (POUR) following pelvic reconstructive surgery. Catheter options for bladder drainage include transurethral indwelling catheter (TIC), intermittent self-catheterization (ISC), and suprapubic tube (SPT). Each strategy has risks and benefits; none have been shown to be clinically superior, and to date, no comprehensive comparative economic analysis has been published.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>The objective of this study was to evaluate the cost of these different bladder catheterization strategies after transvaginal pelvic surgery.</p><p><strong>Study design: </strong>A Canadian universal single-payer (government funded) health system perspective was taken, and a decision tree model was constructed to evaluate the costs associated with each catheterization strategy over a 6-week horizon. Base-cases were set based on recently published clinical data of our institutions, 2 academic tertiary care centers, and based on systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Costs were established in consultation with process stakeholders, in addition to published values.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The average cost calculated for management of transient POUR after outpatient pelvic reconstructive surgery was 150.69 CAD (median 154.86; interquartile range [IQR] 131.30-176.33) for TIC, 162.28 CAD (median 164.72; IQR 144.36-189.39) for ISC and 255.67 CAD (median 270.63; IQR 234.32-276.82) for SPT. In costing inpatient surgical data, the average cost calculated was 134.22 CAD (median 123.61; IQR 108.87-151.85) for TIC and 224.61 CAD (median 216.07; IQR 203.86-231.23) for SPT.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>TIC and ISC were found to be significantly less costly than SPT in managing transient POUR following transvaginal pelvic reconstructive surgery.</p>","PeriodicalId":75288,"journal":{"name":"Urogynecology (Hagerstown, Md.)","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.8000,"publicationDate":"2024-05-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Cost Analysis of Bladder Catheterization After Pelvic Floor Surgery.\",\"authors\":\"Anouk Benseler, Zi Ying Zhao, Muhammad Harris Sheikh, Brian Chan, George Tomlinson, Colleen D McDermott\",\"doi\":\"10.1097/SPV.0000000000001519\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Importance: </strong>Approximately 15-45% of female patients develop transient postoperative urinary retention (POUR) following pelvic reconstructive surgery. Catheter options for bladder drainage include transurethral indwelling catheter (TIC), intermittent self-catheterization (ISC), and suprapubic tube (SPT). Each strategy has risks and benefits; none have been shown to be clinically superior, and to date, no comprehensive comparative economic analysis has been published.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>The objective of this study was to evaluate the cost of these different bladder catheterization strategies after transvaginal pelvic surgery.</p><p><strong>Study design: </strong>A Canadian universal single-payer (government funded) health system perspective was taken, and a decision tree model was constructed to evaluate the costs associated with each catheterization strategy over a 6-week horizon. Base-cases were set based on recently published clinical data of our institutions, 2 academic tertiary care centers, and based on systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Costs were established in consultation with process stakeholders, in addition to published values.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The average cost calculated for management of transient POUR after outpatient pelvic reconstructive surgery was 150.69 CAD (median 154.86; interquartile range [IQR] 131.30-176.33) for TIC, 162.28 CAD (median 164.72; IQR 144.36-189.39) for ISC and 255.67 CAD (median 270.63; IQR 234.32-276.82) for SPT. In costing inpatient surgical data, the average cost calculated was 134.22 CAD (median 123.61; IQR 108.87-151.85) for TIC and 224.61 CAD (median 216.07; IQR 203.86-231.23) for SPT.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>TIC and ISC were found to be significantly less costly than SPT in managing transient POUR following transvaginal pelvic reconstructive surgery.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":75288,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Urogynecology (Hagerstown, Md.)\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-05-10\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Urogynecology (Hagerstown, Md.)\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1097/SPV.0000000000001519\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Urogynecology (Hagerstown, Md.)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/SPV.0000000000001519","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
Cost Analysis of Bladder Catheterization After Pelvic Floor Surgery.
Importance: Approximately 15-45% of female patients develop transient postoperative urinary retention (POUR) following pelvic reconstructive surgery. Catheter options for bladder drainage include transurethral indwelling catheter (TIC), intermittent self-catheterization (ISC), and suprapubic tube (SPT). Each strategy has risks and benefits; none have been shown to be clinically superior, and to date, no comprehensive comparative economic analysis has been published.
Objective: The objective of this study was to evaluate the cost of these different bladder catheterization strategies after transvaginal pelvic surgery.
Study design: A Canadian universal single-payer (government funded) health system perspective was taken, and a decision tree model was constructed to evaluate the costs associated with each catheterization strategy over a 6-week horizon. Base-cases were set based on recently published clinical data of our institutions, 2 academic tertiary care centers, and based on systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Costs were established in consultation with process stakeholders, in addition to published values.
Results: The average cost calculated for management of transient POUR after outpatient pelvic reconstructive surgery was 150.69 CAD (median 154.86; interquartile range [IQR] 131.30-176.33) for TIC, 162.28 CAD (median 164.72; IQR 144.36-189.39) for ISC and 255.67 CAD (median 270.63; IQR 234.32-276.82) for SPT. In costing inpatient surgical data, the average cost calculated was 134.22 CAD (median 123.61; IQR 108.87-151.85) for TIC and 224.61 CAD (median 216.07; IQR 203.86-231.23) for SPT.
Conclusion: TIC and ISC were found to be significantly less costly than SPT in managing transient POUR following transvaginal pelvic reconstructive surgery.