Cost-effectiveness Analysis: Autologous Rectus Fascial Sling Versus Retropubic Midurethral Sling for Female Stress Urinary Incontinence.

Importance: There are limited data on the economic comparison between retropubic midurethral sling and autologous fascial sling.

Objective: This study aims to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of autologous rectus fascial sling compared with retropubic midurethral sling from both hospital and health care perspectives.

Study Design: A decision tree model was developed with 1 year of follow-up. We included variables such as objective success rate, complications and subsequent treatments, and retreatment for incontinence. The model included the index procedure and 1 retreatment for stress urinary incontinence. Cost estimates were calculated from both hospital and health care perspectives. The outcomes were expressed in incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) or cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY). An ICER <$50,000/QALY was considered cost-effective.

Results: From a hospital perspective, the overall cost of retropubic midurethral sling was higher than autologous rectus fascial sling ($2,348.94 vs $2,114.06), but was more effective (0.82 vs 0.80 QALYs). The ICER was $17,452/QALY. From a health care perspective, the overall cost of autologous rectus fascial sling was higher than retropubic midurethral sling ($4,656.63 vs $4,630.47) and was less effective. Retropubic midurethral sling was the dominant strategy, with ICER of -$1,943.32/QALY. If the success rate of autologous rectus fascial sling was ≥84.39%, or the cost of retropubic midurethral sling surgery was > $2,654.36, then autologous rectus fascial sling would become cost-effective.

Conclusions: Retropubic midurethral sling is the cost-effective treatment from the hospital perspective and the dominant treatment from the health care perspective. However, changes in the costs and success rates of surgical procedures can alter the cost-effectiveness results.