BMC Health Services Research

Table 4 Cost-utility analysis among 6 intervention groups

From: Cost-effectiveness analysis of mesh fixation techniques for laparoscopic and open inguinal hernia surgeries

	Short term (1 week)			Long term (6 months)
	Cost ($)	Incremental utility	ICER	Cost ($)	Incremental utility	ICER
Hospital perspective
LT	1,637.01	0.0278		1,655.45	0.0524
LG	1,427.71	0.0390	cost saving	1,441.10	0.0813	cost saving
LSG	2,498.98	0.0195	dominated	2,534.65	0.0347	dominated
OS	1,036.78	0.0184		1,084.65	0.0341
OG	682.36	0.0246	cost saving	700.49	0.0542	cost saving
OSG	934.40	0.0445	cost saving	945.05	0.1068	cost saving
Societal perspective
LT	2,379.29	0.0278		2,692.35	0.0524
LG	1,728.19	0.0390	cost saving	1,877.79	0.0813	cost saving
LSG	3,222.23	0.0195	dominated	3,484.10	0.0347	dominated
OS	1,612.01	0.0184		1,824.30	0.0341
OG	965.88	0.0246	cost saving	1,120.96	0.0542	cost saving
OSG	1,450.83	0.0445	cost saving	1,577.93	0.1068	cost saving

LT Laparoscopic inguinal hernia repair using tacker, LG Laparoscopic inguinal hernia repair using glue, LSG Laparoscopic inguinal hernia repair using self-gripping mesh, OS Open inguinal hernia repair using suture, OG Open inguinal hernia repair using glue, OSG Open inguinal hernia repair using self-gripping mesh. ICER Incremental cost-effectiveness ratio. The difference in cost between glue or SGM mesh fixation compared to convention (tacker in LHR or suture in OHR groups), divided by the difference in their incremental utility. The cost saving means an incremental cost or utility is better than conventional group

Back to article page

ISSN: 1472-6963

Contact us

General enquiries: journalsubmissions@springernature.com