Back to Search
Start Over
<scp>Cost‐effectiveness</scp> of endoscopic endonasal vs transcranial approaches for olfactory groove meningioma
- Source :
- Head & Neck. 43:79-88
- Publication Year :
- 2020
- Publisher :
- Wiley, 2020.
-
Abstract
- Background Endoscopic endonasal approaches (EEAs) have been adopted as an alternative to standard transcranial approaches for olfactory groove meningiomas (OGMs). However, the relative cost-effectiveness remains controversial. Methods Cost-utility analysis from a societal perspective comparing EEA vs transcranial approaches for OGM was used in this study. Surgical treatment was modeled using decision analysis, and a Markov model was adopted over a 20-year horizon. Parameters were obtained from literature review. Costs were expressed in 2017 Canadian dollars. Results In the base case, EEA was cost-effective compared with transcranial surgery with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $33 523 ($30 475 USD)/QALY. There was a 55% likelihood that EEA was cost-effective at a willingness-to-pay of $50 000/QALY. EEA remained cost-effective at a cerebrospinal fluid leak rate below 60%, gross total resection rate above 25%, and base cost less than $66 174 ($60 158 USD). Conclusion EEA may be a cost-effective alternative to transcranial approaches for selected OGM.
- Subjects :
- Transcranial surgery
Canada
medicine.medical_specialty
Endoscopic endonasal surgery
Cerebrospinal fluid leak
Cost effectiveness
business.industry
Cost-Benefit Analysis
medicine.disease
Gross Total Resection
Surgery
03 medical and health sciences
Treatment Outcome
0302 clinical medicine
Otorhinolaryngology
Olfactory Groove Meningioma
030220 oncology & carcinogenesis
Meningeal Neoplasms
medicine
Humans
Meningioma
Surgical treatment
business
030217 neurology & neurosurgery
Decision analysis
Subjects
Details
- ISSN :
- 10970347 and 10433074
- Volume :
- 43
- Database :
- OpenAIRE
- Journal :
- Head & Neck
- Accession number :
- edsair.doi.dedup.....af0eba94d8e73e73535d2e6b733ec9a2
- Full Text :
- https://doi.org/10.1002/hed.26462