Association between surgical volumes and real-world healthcare cost when using a mesh capturing device for pelvic organ prolapse: A 5-years comparison between single- versus multicenter use

Introduction and hypothesis The aim of this study was to evaluate whether high surgical volume at a single center was associated with lower healthcare costs compared to lower surgical volume in a multicenter setting. Methods All patients had symptomatic and anatomical apical prolapse (POP-Q ≥ stage II) with or without cystocele and were operated on by a standard surgical procedure using the Uphold mesh. Data on time of resource use in terms of surgery time, hospital stay and re-interventions across 5 years were compared between the single center (97 patients) and multicenter (173 patients, at 24 clinics). Unit costs for surgical time, inpatient and outpatient visits were extracted from the single-center hospital’s operation analysis program and prime production cost. Total costs were estimated for primary surgery and during 5-year follow-up. Results Costs for primary surgery were comparable between the single and the multicenter ($13,561 ± 2688 and $13,867 ± 1177, P = 0.29). Follow-up costs 5 years after primary surgery were 2.8 times higher at the multicenter than single center ($3262 vs. $1149, P < 0.001). Mean cost per patient over 5 years was significantly lower at the single than multicenter [$14,710 (CI: 14,168–15,252) vs. $17,128 (CI: 16,952–17,305), P < 0.001)]. Conclusions Using a mesh kit for apical pelvic organ prolapse in a high surgical volume center was associated with reduced healthcare costs compared with a lower volume multiple-site setting. The cost reduction at the high surgical volume center increased over time because of lower surgical and medical re-intervention rates for postoperative complications and recurrence.