Retrospective cost analysis comparing Essure hysteroscopic sterilization and laparoscopic bilateral tubal coagulation

Matthew R. Hopkins, Douglas J. Creedon, Amy E. Wagie, Arthur R. Williams, Abimbola O. Famuyide

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

46 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Study objective: To compare the institutional cost of permanent female sterilization by Essure hysteroscopic sterilization and laparoscopic bilateral coagulation. Design: Retrospective cohort study (Canadian Task Force classification II-2). Setting: Midwestern academic medical center. Patients: Women of reproductive age who elected for permanent contraception by the Essure method (n = 43) or by laparoscopic tubal coagulation (n = 44) during the time frame studied. Interventions: Placement of the Essure inserts according to the manufacturer's instructions or laparoscopic tubal sterilization using bipolar forceps according to standard techniques of open or closed laparoscopy. Measurements and main results: Cost-center data for the institutional cost of the procedure was abstracted for each patient included in the study. In addition, demographic data and procedural information were obtained and compared for the patient populations. The Essure system of hysteroscopic sterilization had a significantly decreased cost compared with laparoscopic tubal sterilization when both procedures were performed in an operating room setting. The decrease per patient in institutional cost was $180 (p = .038). This included the cost of the confirmatory hysterosalpingogram 3 months after Essure placement and the cost of laparoscopic tubal occlusion by Filshie clip if the Essure micro-inserts could not be placed. The majority of the cost was related to hospital costs as opposed to physician costs. The Essure procedure had higher costs for disposable equipment (p <.0001), but this was offset by higher charges for operating room costs, which included the recovery room (p <.0001) and pharmacy costs (p <.0001) in the patients in the laparoscopy group. Conclusion: In our setting, the Essure hysteroscopic sterilization had significant cost savings compared with laparoscopic tubal sterilization (p = .038). We believe that our data represent the minimum of potential savings using this approach, and future developments will only increase the cost difference found in our study.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)97-102
Number of pages6
JournalJournal of Minimally Invasive Gynecology
Volume14
Issue number1
DOIs
StatePublished - Jan 2007

Fingerprint

Costs and Cost Analysis
Tubal Sterilization
Operating Rooms
Surgical Instruments
Laparoscopy
Disposable Equipment
Reproductive Sterilization
Recovery Room
Cost Savings
Hospital Costs
Advisory Committees
Contraception
Cohort Studies
Retrospective Studies
Demography
Physicians
Population

Keywords

  • Female sterilization
  • Health care costs
  • Hysteroscopy
  • Laparoscopy
  • Tubal occlusion

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Obstetrics and Gynecology

Cite this

Retrospective cost analysis comparing Essure hysteroscopic sterilization and laparoscopic bilateral tubal coagulation. / Hopkins, Matthew R.; Creedon, Douglas J.; Wagie, Amy E.; Williams, Arthur R.; Famuyide, Abimbola O.

In: Journal of Minimally Invasive Gynecology, Vol. 14, No. 1, 01.2007, p. 97-102.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Hopkins, Matthew R. ; Creedon, Douglas J. ; Wagie, Amy E. ; Williams, Arthur R. ; Famuyide, Abimbola O. / Retrospective cost analysis comparing Essure hysteroscopic sterilization and laparoscopic bilateral tubal coagulation. In: Journal of Minimally Invasive Gynecology. 2007 ; Vol. 14, No. 1. pp. 97-102.
@article{4f5451d9256a4518a7b190f3632b75f2,
title = "Retrospective cost analysis comparing Essure hysteroscopic sterilization and laparoscopic bilateral tubal coagulation",
abstract = "Study objective: To compare the institutional cost of permanent female sterilization by Essure hysteroscopic sterilization and laparoscopic bilateral coagulation. Design: Retrospective cohort study (Canadian Task Force classification II-2). Setting: Midwestern academic medical center. Patients: Women of reproductive age who elected for permanent contraception by the Essure method (n = 43) or by laparoscopic tubal coagulation (n = 44) during the time frame studied. Interventions: Placement of the Essure inserts according to the manufacturer's instructions or laparoscopic tubal sterilization using bipolar forceps according to standard techniques of open or closed laparoscopy. Measurements and main results: Cost-center data for the institutional cost of the procedure was abstracted for each patient included in the study. In addition, demographic data and procedural information were obtained and compared for the patient populations. The Essure system of hysteroscopic sterilization had a significantly decreased cost compared with laparoscopic tubal sterilization when both procedures were performed in an operating room setting. The decrease per patient in institutional cost was $180 (p = .038). This included the cost of the confirmatory hysterosalpingogram 3 months after Essure placement and the cost of laparoscopic tubal occlusion by Filshie clip if the Essure micro-inserts could not be placed. The majority of the cost was related to hospital costs as opposed to physician costs. The Essure procedure had higher costs for disposable equipment (p <.0001), but this was offset by higher charges for operating room costs, which included the recovery room (p <.0001) and pharmacy costs (p <.0001) in the patients in the laparoscopy group. Conclusion: In our setting, the Essure hysteroscopic sterilization had significant cost savings compared with laparoscopic tubal sterilization (p = .038). We believe that our data represent the minimum of potential savings using this approach, and future developments will only increase the cost difference found in our study.",
keywords = "Female sterilization, Health care costs, Hysteroscopy, Laparoscopy, Tubal occlusion",
author = "Hopkins, {Matthew R.} and Creedon, {Douglas J.} and Wagie, {Amy E.} and Williams, {Arthur R.} and Famuyide, {Abimbola O.}",
year = "2007",
month = "1",
doi = "10.1016/j.jmig.2006.10.001",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "14",
pages = "97--102",
journal = "Journal of Minimally Invasive Gynecology",
issn = "1553-4650",
publisher = "Elsevier",
number = "1",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Retrospective cost analysis comparing Essure hysteroscopic sterilization and laparoscopic bilateral tubal coagulation

AU - Hopkins, Matthew R.

AU - Creedon, Douglas J.

AU - Wagie, Amy E.

AU - Williams, Arthur R.

AU - Famuyide, Abimbola O.

PY - 2007/1

Y1 - 2007/1

N2 - Study objective: To compare the institutional cost of permanent female sterilization by Essure hysteroscopic sterilization and laparoscopic bilateral coagulation. Design: Retrospective cohort study (Canadian Task Force classification II-2). Setting: Midwestern academic medical center. Patients: Women of reproductive age who elected for permanent contraception by the Essure method (n = 43) or by laparoscopic tubal coagulation (n = 44) during the time frame studied. Interventions: Placement of the Essure inserts according to the manufacturer's instructions or laparoscopic tubal sterilization using bipolar forceps according to standard techniques of open or closed laparoscopy. Measurements and main results: Cost-center data for the institutional cost of the procedure was abstracted for each patient included in the study. In addition, demographic data and procedural information were obtained and compared for the patient populations. The Essure system of hysteroscopic sterilization had a significantly decreased cost compared with laparoscopic tubal sterilization when both procedures were performed in an operating room setting. The decrease per patient in institutional cost was $180 (p = .038). This included the cost of the confirmatory hysterosalpingogram 3 months after Essure placement and the cost of laparoscopic tubal occlusion by Filshie clip if the Essure micro-inserts could not be placed. The majority of the cost was related to hospital costs as opposed to physician costs. The Essure procedure had higher costs for disposable equipment (p <.0001), but this was offset by higher charges for operating room costs, which included the recovery room (p <.0001) and pharmacy costs (p <.0001) in the patients in the laparoscopy group. Conclusion: In our setting, the Essure hysteroscopic sterilization had significant cost savings compared with laparoscopic tubal sterilization (p = .038). We believe that our data represent the minimum of potential savings using this approach, and future developments will only increase the cost difference found in our study.

AB - Study objective: To compare the institutional cost of permanent female sterilization by Essure hysteroscopic sterilization and laparoscopic bilateral coagulation. Design: Retrospective cohort study (Canadian Task Force classification II-2). Setting: Midwestern academic medical center. Patients: Women of reproductive age who elected for permanent contraception by the Essure method (n = 43) or by laparoscopic tubal coagulation (n = 44) during the time frame studied. Interventions: Placement of the Essure inserts according to the manufacturer's instructions or laparoscopic tubal sterilization using bipolar forceps according to standard techniques of open or closed laparoscopy. Measurements and main results: Cost-center data for the institutional cost of the procedure was abstracted for each patient included in the study. In addition, demographic data and procedural information were obtained and compared for the patient populations. The Essure system of hysteroscopic sterilization had a significantly decreased cost compared with laparoscopic tubal sterilization when both procedures were performed in an operating room setting. The decrease per patient in institutional cost was $180 (p = .038). This included the cost of the confirmatory hysterosalpingogram 3 months after Essure placement and the cost of laparoscopic tubal occlusion by Filshie clip if the Essure micro-inserts could not be placed. The majority of the cost was related to hospital costs as opposed to physician costs. The Essure procedure had higher costs for disposable equipment (p <.0001), but this was offset by higher charges for operating room costs, which included the recovery room (p <.0001) and pharmacy costs (p <.0001) in the patients in the laparoscopy group. Conclusion: In our setting, the Essure hysteroscopic sterilization had significant cost savings compared with laparoscopic tubal sterilization (p = .038). We believe that our data represent the minimum of potential savings using this approach, and future developments will only increase the cost difference found in our study.

KW - Female sterilization

KW - Health care costs

KW - Hysteroscopy

KW - Laparoscopy

KW - Tubal occlusion

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=33846007715&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=33846007715&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/j.jmig.2006.10.001

DO - 10.1016/j.jmig.2006.10.001

M3 - Article

C2 - 17218238

AN - SCOPUS:33846007715

VL - 14

SP - 97

EP - 102

JO - Journal of Minimally Invasive Gynecology

JF - Journal of Minimally Invasive Gynecology

SN - 1553-4650

IS - 1

ER -