Laparoscopic v open donor nephrectomy: a cost-utility analysis of the initial experience at a tertiary-care center.

Background and Purpose: Laparoscopic donor nephrectomy (LapDN) offers donors more rapid postoperative recovery and recipients equivalent graft function when compared with open donor nephrectomy (OpenDN). Nonetheless, costs are less favorable for LapDN than for OpenDN. We compared LapDN and OpenDN with cost-utility analysis. Methods: A decision analysis modeling approach was performed: utilities derived using time trade-off and quality-adjusted life year (QALY) techniques; probabilities derived from a systematic review of the literature. All costs were included from a societal perspective using actual cost data from OpenDN and LapDN patients performed contemporaneously between July 1, 2000 and December 31, 2000. Costs of lost employment were estimated using mean provincial annual earnings. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was calculated with "best-case" and "worst-case" scenarios for confidence intervals; sensitivity analyses were used to assess robustness. Results: LapDN costs are higher ($10,317.40 vs. $9,853.70), while quality of life (QOL) is superior (0.7683 vs. 0.7062). The ICER from a societal perspective was C$7,471.11/QALY. If all donor nephrectomies nationally were performed laparoscopically, there would be an additional annual cost of C$665,240 with a societal gain of 24.84 QALYs. Conclusions: LapDN offers improved QOL at marginally higher cost. A societal ICER of $7,471.11/QALY compares favorably to many accepted health-care interventions. By potentially increasing organ donor rates, LapDN may be cost saving by decreasing the number of patients on dialysis.