Office hysteroscopic sterilization compared with laparoscopic sterilization: A critical cost analysis

Mark D. Levie, Scott G. Chudnoff

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

65 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

STUDY OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the actual cost difference in performing Essure hysteroscopic sterilization in the office compared with ambulatory surgery using laparoscopic sterilization in the operating room. DESIGN: Cost-comparison analysis (Canadian Task Force classification III). SETTING: University hospital and affiliated outpatient office. INTERVENTIONS: Hysteroscopic placement of Essure device in an office setting and laparoscopic tubal ligation for permanent sterilization. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: The various costs associated with the two procedures at our institution were compiled, and a direct cost comparison was made. We used actual institutional costs of the procedures, not billing or reimbursement. We found laparoscopic tubal ligations to cost $3449 compared with hysteroscopic placement of the Essure device that costs $1374 yielding a $2075 difference between the procedures. CONCLUSION: In our institution and in our experience, office-hysteroscopic placement of the Essure device is a more cost-effective method than laparoscopic tubal ligation.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)318-322
Number of pages5
JournalJournal of Minimally Invasive Gynecology
Volume12
Issue number4
DOIs
StatePublished - Aug 2005

Fingerprint

Costs and Cost Analysis
Tubal Sterilization
Equipment and Supplies
Advisory Committees
Operating Rooms
Ambulatory Surgical Procedures
Outpatients

Keywords

  • Cost
  • Essure
  • Hysteroscopy
  • Laparoscopy
  • Sterilization

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Obstetrics and Gynecology

Cite this

Office hysteroscopic sterilization compared with laparoscopic sterilization : A critical cost analysis. / Levie, Mark D.; Chudnoff, Scott G.

In: Journal of Minimally Invasive Gynecology, Vol. 12, No. 4, 08.2005, p. 318-322.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{9669b3da44044b30bcfe6170f55d0ec1,
title = "Office hysteroscopic sterilization compared with laparoscopic sterilization: A critical cost analysis",
abstract = "STUDY OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the actual cost difference in performing Essure hysteroscopic sterilization in the office compared with ambulatory surgery using laparoscopic sterilization in the operating room. DESIGN: Cost-comparison analysis (Canadian Task Force classification III). SETTING: University hospital and affiliated outpatient office. INTERVENTIONS: Hysteroscopic placement of Essure device in an office setting and laparoscopic tubal ligation for permanent sterilization. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: The various costs associated with the two procedures at our institution were compiled, and a direct cost comparison was made. We used actual institutional costs of the procedures, not billing or reimbursement. We found laparoscopic tubal ligations to cost $3449 compared with hysteroscopic placement of the Essure device that costs $1374 yielding a $2075 difference between the procedures. CONCLUSION: In our institution and in our experience, office-hysteroscopic placement of the Essure device is a more cost-effective method than laparoscopic tubal ligation.",
keywords = "Cost, Essure, Hysteroscopy, Laparoscopy, Sterilization",
author = "Levie, {Mark D.} and Chudnoff, {Scott G.}",
year = "2005",
month = "8",
doi = "10.1016/j.jmig.2005.05.016",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "12",
pages = "318--322",
journal = "Journal of Minimally Invasive Gynecology",
issn = "1553-4650",
publisher = "Elsevier",
number = "4",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Office hysteroscopic sterilization compared with laparoscopic sterilization

T2 - A critical cost analysis

AU - Levie, Mark D.

AU - Chudnoff, Scott G.

PY - 2005/8

Y1 - 2005/8

N2 - STUDY OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the actual cost difference in performing Essure hysteroscopic sterilization in the office compared with ambulatory surgery using laparoscopic sterilization in the operating room. DESIGN: Cost-comparison analysis (Canadian Task Force classification III). SETTING: University hospital and affiliated outpatient office. INTERVENTIONS: Hysteroscopic placement of Essure device in an office setting and laparoscopic tubal ligation for permanent sterilization. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: The various costs associated with the two procedures at our institution were compiled, and a direct cost comparison was made. We used actual institutional costs of the procedures, not billing or reimbursement. We found laparoscopic tubal ligations to cost $3449 compared with hysteroscopic placement of the Essure device that costs $1374 yielding a $2075 difference between the procedures. CONCLUSION: In our institution and in our experience, office-hysteroscopic placement of the Essure device is a more cost-effective method than laparoscopic tubal ligation.

AB - STUDY OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the actual cost difference in performing Essure hysteroscopic sterilization in the office compared with ambulatory surgery using laparoscopic sterilization in the operating room. DESIGN: Cost-comparison analysis (Canadian Task Force classification III). SETTING: University hospital and affiliated outpatient office. INTERVENTIONS: Hysteroscopic placement of Essure device in an office setting and laparoscopic tubal ligation for permanent sterilization. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: The various costs associated with the two procedures at our institution were compiled, and a direct cost comparison was made. We used actual institutional costs of the procedures, not billing or reimbursement. We found laparoscopic tubal ligations to cost $3449 compared with hysteroscopic placement of the Essure device that costs $1374 yielding a $2075 difference between the procedures. CONCLUSION: In our institution and in our experience, office-hysteroscopic placement of the Essure device is a more cost-effective method than laparoscopic tubal ligation.

KW - Cost

KW - Essure

KW - Hysteroscopy

KW - Laparoscopy

KW - Sterilization

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=22144437050&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=22144437050&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/j.jmig.2005.05.016

DO - 10.1016/j.jmig.2005.05.016

M3 - Article

C2 - 16036190

AN - SCOPUS:22144437050

VL - 12

SP - 318

EP - 322

JO - Journal of Minimally Invasive Gynecology

JF - Journal of Minimally Invasive Gynecology

SN - 1553-4650

IS - 4

ER -