English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Objective: To compare costs and QoL associated with 2 minimally invasive operations to treat uterovaginal prolapse. Study Design: A decision analytic cost-effectiveness model comparing vaginal mesh hysteropexy to robotic-assisted sacrocolpopexy. Costs were derived from a hospital perspective. QoL estimates focused on: recurrent prolapse; erosion; infection; transfusion; cystotomy; chronic pain; lower urinary tract symptoms; and mortality. Actual procedural costs at our institution were calculated. Costs and quality adjusted life years were examined over 1 year. Results: The costs ($21,853) and QALYs (0.9645) for robotic sacrocolpopexy produced a CE Ratio of $22,657 per QALY. The costs ($14,890) and QALYs (0.9309) for vaginal mesh produced a CE Ratio of $15,995 per QALY. The incremental cost per QALYs for robotic surgery was $207,232. Sensitivity analysis on all utilities, cost estimates, and complication estimates didn’t cross any thresholds. Conclusion: Vaginal mesh was more cost-effective than robotic sacrocolpopexy even when the cost of the robot was not factored.

Cost-effectiveness analysis comparing robotic sacrocolpopexy to a vaginal mesh hysteropexy for treatment of uterovaginal prolapse