Cost-effectiveness of Urethral Bulking with Polyacrylamide Hydrogel Compared to Other Treatments for Stress Urinary Incontinence

Our objective was to perform a cost-effectiveness analysis comparing polyacrylamide hydrogel urethral bulking with other surgical and nonsurgical treatments for stress urinary incontinence (SUI). We created a cost-effectiveness analysis using TreeAge Pro, modeling eight SUI treatments. Treatment with midurethral sling (MUS) had the highest effectiveness (1.86 quality-adjusted life-years [QALYs]), followed by polyacrylamide hydrogel (1.82 QALYs), with a difference (Δ 0.02/year) less than the minimally important difference for utilities of 0.03 annually. When the proportion of polyacrylamide hydrogel urethral bulking procedures performed in the office setting is greater than 58%, polyacrylamide hydrogel is a cost-effective treatment for SUI, along with pessary, pelvic floor physical therapy, and MUS. Although MUS is more effective and, therefore, the preferred SUI treatment, polyacrylamide hydrogel is a reasonable alternative depending on patient preferences and treatment goals.