Financial analysis of minimally invasive sacrocolpopexy compared with native tissue vaginal repair with concomitant hysterectomy

INTRODUCTION

Minimally invasive sacrocolpopexy (MISCP) is increasingly used for uterovaginal prolapse, but comparative cost data of MISCP versus native tissue vaginal repair (NTR) are lacking. The objective was to determine the cost difference, from a hospital perspective, between MISCP and NTR performed with hysterectomy for uterovaginal prolapse.

METHODS

This was a retrospective cohort study at a tertiary care center of women who underwent NTR or MISCP with concomitant hysterectomy in 2021. Hospital charges, direct and indirect costs, and operating margin (revenue minus costs) were obtained from Strata Jazz and compared using SPSS.

RESULTS

A total of 82 women were included, 33 MISCP (25 robotic, 8 laparoscopic) versus 49 NTR. Demographic and surgical data were similar, except that MISCP had younger age (50.5 vs 61.1 years, p<0.01). Same-day discharge and estimated blood loss were similar, but operative time was longer for MISCP (204 vs 161 min, p<0.01). MISCP total costs were higher (US$17,422 vs US$13,001, p<0.01). MISCP had higher direct costs (US$12,354 vs US$9,305, p<0.01) and indirect costs (US$5,068 vs US$3,696, p<0.01). Consumable supply costs were higher with MISCP (US$4,429 vs US$2,089, p<0.01), but the cost of operating room time and staff was similar (US$7,926 vs US$7,216, p=0.07). Controlling for same-day discharge, anti-incontinence procedures and smoking, total costs were higher for MISCP (adjusted beta = US$4,262, p<0.01). Mean charges (US$102,060 vs US$97,185, p=0.379), revenue (US$22,214 vs US$22,491, p=0.929), and operating margin (US$8,719 vs US$3,966, p=0.134) were not statistically different.

CONCLUSION

Minimally invasive sacrocolpopexy had higher costs than NTR; however, charges, reimbursement, and operating margins were not statistically significantly different between the groups.

Voiding function after sacrocolpopexy versus native tissue transvaginal repair for apical pelvic organ prolapse in an ERAS era: A retrospective cohort study

Objective

The objectives of this study were to compare time to return of voiding function and associated complications in women undergoing minimally invasive sacrocolpopexy (SCP) versus transvaginal native tissue repair in patients with same-day or early discharge.

Methods

This was a retrospective cohort study conducted at a tertiary care center. The electronic medical record system was queried for women who underwent native tissue vaginal repair or SCP for apical prolapse between March and December 2020 using CPT codes for sacrocolpopexy (57425), extraperitoneal (57282), and intraperitoneal colpopexy (57283). Voiding success was our primary outcome and was defined by a postvoid residual < 150 ml. Secondary outcomes included catheter days and urinary tract infections. The total number of participants was based on a power calculation using internal institutional rates. Participants were compared based on the surgical approach. A multivariate regression analysis was performed to assess for confounding factors.

Results

We included 134 women: 63 SCP and 71 native tissue. The failure rate of the first postoperative voiding trial was 34 vs. 11% (odds ratio: 4.91; 95% CI 1.96–12.3, p < 0.01) in the vaginal and SCP groups, respectively. Both groups had a similar success rate of a second voiding trial (100% in SCP group vs. 95.7% in the vaginal repair group, p = 1). The total number of days (3.108 vs. 1.603 days, p < 0.01) to return of bladder function, postoperative urinary tract infections (23.9 vs. 6.35%, p < 0.01) and emergency department visits (15.5 vs. 1.59%, p < 0.01) were all higher in the vaginal repair group.

Conclusions

Vaginal apical native tissue repair had a fivefold greater risk of acute postoperative urinary retention compared to sacrocolpopexy in addition to increased rates of post-operative urinary tract infection and emergency department visits for urinary tract concerns.