Keywords
laparoscopy
HTA
Abstract
Introduction
The objective of this paper is the comparison between two different technologies used for the removal of a uterine myoma, a frequent benign tumor of the uterus: the standard technology currently used, laparoscopy, and an innovative one, colpoceliotomy. It was considered relevant to evaluate the real and the potential effects of the two technologies and, in addition, the consequences that the introduction or exclusion of the innovative technology would have for both the National Health System (NHS) and the entire community.
Methods
The comparison between these two different technologies, the standard and the innovative one, was conducted using a Health Technology Assessment (HTA). In particular, in order to analyse their differences, a multi-dimensional approach was considered: effectiveness, costs and budget impact analysis data were collected with the implementation of different instruments, such as the Activity Based Costing methodology (ABC), the Cost-Effectiveness Analysis (CEA) and the Budget Impact Analysis (BIA). Organisational, equity and social impact were also evaluated.
Results
The results showed that the introduction of colpoceliotomy would provide significant economic savings to the Regional and National Health Service; in particular, a saving of ⬠453.27 for each surgical patient.
Discussion
The introduction of the innovative technology, colpoceliotomy, would lead substantial savings in terms of surgery costs for the treatment of uterine myomas. Furthermore, it could be considered a valuable tool; one offering many advantages related to less invasiveness and a shorter surgical procedure than the standard technology currently used (laparoscopy).
References
Birsan A, Deval B, Detchev R, Poncelet C, Daraï E. Vaginal and laparoscopic myomectomy for large posterior myomas: results of a pilot study. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 2003 Sep;110(1):89-93. Available from: http://toxnet.nlm.nih.gov/cgi-bin/sis/search2/r?dbs+hsdb:@term+@rn+57-27-2 PubMed PMID: 12932879. doi: 10.1016/S0301-2115(03)00087-3. [Google Scholar]
Davies A, Hart R, Magos AL. The excision of uterine fibroids by vaginal myomectomy: a prospective study. Fertil Steril 1999;71(5):961-964. Available from: https://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/uterinecancer.html PubMed PMID: 10231066. doi: 10.1016/S0015-0282(99)00061-8. [Google Scholar]
Stewart EA. Uterine fibroids and evidence-based medicine. Not an oxymoron. N Engl J Med 2012;366(5):471-3. Available from: http://www.nejm.org/doi/abs/10.1056/NEJMe1114043 doi: 10.1056/NEJMe1114043. [Google Scholar]
Lethaby A, Vollenhoven B, Sowter M. Pre-operative GnRH analogue therapy before hysterectomy or myomectomy for uterine fibroids.. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2001;2 Available from(2). Available from: http://www.scholaruniverse.com/ncbi-linkout?id=11405968 PubMed PMID: 11405968. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD000547. [Google Scholar]
Semm K, Mettler L. Technical progress in pelvic surgery via operative laparoscopy.. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1980 Sep;138(2):121-127. PubMed PMID: 6448547. [Google Scholar]
Carminati R, Ragusa A, Giannica R, et al. Anterior and poste- rior vaginal myomectomy: a new surgical technique. Med Gen Med 2006;8:42. [Google Scholar]
Bedoya Y, Hexia G. Vaginal myomectomy. Gynecol Prat 1951;2:486. [Google Scholar]
Bognoni V, Jr QA, Quartuccio A. Therapeutic pos- terior colpo-celiotomy. Authors’ experience. Minerva Ginecol 1999;51:153-5. [Google Scholar]
Magos AL, Bournas N, Sinha R, et al. Vaginal myomectomy. BJOG 1994;101(12):1092-4. Available from: http://doi.wiley.com/10.1111/j.1471-0528.1994.tb13593.x doi: 10.1111/j.1471-0528.1994.tb13593.x. [Google Scholar]
Plotti G, Plotti F, Giovanni A, et al. Feasibility and safety of vaginal myomectomy: a prospective pilot study. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 2008;15(2):166-171. Available from: https://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/uterinefibroids.html PubMed PMID: 18312985. doi: 10.1016/j.jmig.2007.09.010. [Google Scholar]
Drummond MF, Schwartz JS, Jönsson B, Luce BR, Neumann PJ, Siebert U, et al. Key principles for the improved conduct of health technology assessments for resource allocation decisions.. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 2008;24(3):244-258. Available from: http://www.scholaruniverse.com/ncbi-linkout?id=18601792 PubMed PMID: 18601792. doi: 10.1017/S0266462308080343. [Google Scholar]
Drummond MF. Principles of Economic Appraisal in Health Care. Oxford: University Press; 1980. [Google Scholar]
EUnetHTA. HTA Core Model for medical and surgical interventions 1.0r, 2008. Available online at: http://www.eunethta.eu/outputs/hta-core-model-medical-and-surgical-interventions-10r.
Thokala P. Multicriteria Decision Analysis for Health Technology Assessment. 2011. Available online at: http://www.nicedsu.org.uk/MCDA%20for%20HTA%20DSU.pdf.
Radaelli G, Lettieri E, Masella C, et al. Implementation of Eu- nethta core model® in Lombardia: The VTS framework. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 2014;30(01):105-12. Available from: http://www.journals.cambridge.org/abstract_S0266462313000639 doi: 10.1017/S0266462313000639. [Google Scholar]
agani R, Porazzi E, Manzini R, et al. Assessing Innovative Healthcare Technologies in Hospitals: Lessons Learnt From an Empirical Experiment. RnD Management Conference. 2015.
Mitton C, Dionne F, Damji R, et al. Difficult decisions in times of constraint: Criteria based Resource Allocation in the Vancouver Coastal Health Authority. BMC Health Serv Res 2011;11(1):169. Available from: http://www.biomedcentral.com/1472-6963/11/169 PubMed PMID: 21756357. doi: 10.1186/1472-6963-11-169. [Google Scholar]
Cooper R, Kaplan RS. How Cost Accounting Distorts Product Costs. Manag Account. 1988
Bogdanoiu C. Activity Based Costing from the perspective of competitive advantage. J Appl Econ Sci 2009;1:5. [Google Scholar]
Bruggeman W, Everaert P. Time-driven Activity-based Costing: exploring the Underlying Model. Cost Management 2009;21:16. [Google Scholar]
Krumweide KR. The Implementation Stages of ABC and the Impact of Contextual and Organizational Factors. J Manag Account Res 1988;10:239. [Google Scholar]
Robinson R. Cost-effectiveness analysis.. BMJ 1993 Sep;307(6907):793-795. Available from: http://europepmc.org/abstract/MED/8219957 PubMed PMID: 8219957. doi: 10.1136/bmj.307.6907.793. [Google Scholar]
Shepard S, Thompson M. First principles of Cost-Effectiveness analysis in Health. Public Health Rep. 1979;94:535–543.
Mauskopf JA, Sullivans SD, Annemans L, et al. Principles of good practice for budget impact analysis: report of the ISPOR task force on good research practices-budget impact analysis. Value in Health 2007;10(5):336-347. Available from: http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S1098-3015(10)60471-8 PubMed PMID: 17888098. doi: 10.1111/j.1524-4733.2007.00187.x. [Google Scholar]
Mauskopf JA, Sullivans SD, Annemans L, et al. Principles of good practice for budget impact analysis: report of the ISPOR task force on good research practices-budget impact analysis. Value in Health 2007;10(5):336-347. Available from: http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S1098-3015(10)60471-8 PubMed PMID: 17888098. doi: 10.1111/j.1524-4733.2007.00187.x. [Google Scholar]
Carminati R. La chirurgia vaginale oltre la tradizione. Padova: Piccin; 2009. [Google Scholar]
Chiesa V, Frattini F, Gilardoni E, et al. Searching for factors influencing technological asset value. Eur J Innovation Manag 2007;10(4):467-88. Available from: http://www.emeraldinsight.com/doi/abs/10.1108/14601060710828781 doi: 10.1108/14601060710828781. [Google Scholar]