Skip to main content

Table 5 Cost-effectiveness analysis on hernia recurrence among 6 intervention groups

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

 

Cost ($)

Individual data from cohort study

Umbrella review

Recurrence rate

Incremental recurrence case prevented

ICER

Recurrence rate

Incremental recurrence case prevented

ICER

Hospital perspective

 LT

2,761.41

2.13

  

2.36

  

 LG

2,557.56

3.85

-1.72

118.52

2.00

0.36

cost saving

 LSG

3,658.46

10.00

-7.87

dominated

1.40

0.96

934.43

 OS

2,761.41

3.42

  

2.68

  

 OG

2,357.96

5.56

-2.14

188.53

2.00

0.68

cost saving

 OSG

2,584.48

8.70

-5.28

33.51

1.60

1.08

cost saving

Societal perspective

 LT

4,090.63

2.13

  

2.36

  

 LG

3,411.90

3.85

-1.72

394.61

2.00

0.36

cost saving

 LSG

5,420.65

10.00

-7.87

dominated

1.40

0.96

1,385.44

 OS

4,451.50

3.42

  

2.68

  

 OG

3,583.39

5.56

-2.14

405.66

2.00

0.68

cost saving

 OSG

4,846.57

8.70

-5.28

dominated

1.60

1.08

365.81

  1. 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. 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 hernia recurrence rate. The cost saving means an incremental cost or utility is better than conventional group