Skip to main content

A cost-effectiveness analysis of delayed sphincteroplasty for anal sphincter injury

Buy Article:

$43.00 plus tax (Refund Policy)

Abstract Objective 

Anal-sphincter injury may result in faecal incontinence. Sphincteroplasty is usually performed as a primary (immediate) procedure. Delayed sphincteroplasty (DS) can be performed if there is significant trauma or soiling, if the primary procedure has failed, and if the injury was not recognized initially. This study aimed to determine the cost to patient and health service in the event a DS is performed. Method 

Patients with anal-sphincter-injury who underwent primary sphincteroplasty (PS)/DS were identified from the published literature (primary, n = 103; delayed, n = 777) using Medline, Embase, Ovid and Cochrane databases for studies published between 1976 and 2006. Studies included described at least one of the measured outcomes – probability of functional success/failure and quality of life (QOL). An economic model was constructed and decision analysis performed using a decision tree based on a Markov process. Main outcomes were quality-adjusted-life-years (QALYs) gained from each strategy, costs incurred and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) over a 10- and 15-year time horizon. Results 

Over 10 years, primary sphincteroplasty (PS) produced a gain of 5.72 QALYs for an estimated £2750, giving an ICER of £487 per QALY. DS produced a gain of 3.73 QALYs for a cost of £2667, giving an ICER of £719 per QALY. Both procedures fell below the £10 000 per QALY willingness-to-pay threshold, but PS produced the highest QALYs. Both procedures performed poorly beyond the 10-year mark. Conclusion 

If DS has to be performed, the resultant cost is greater with concurrently lower QALYs gained. Successful PS substantially improves QOL and reduces overall cost-of-treatment.
No References
No Citations
No Supplementary Data
No Article Media
No Metrics

Keywords: Faecal incontinence; anal sphincter; neosphincter; sacral nerve stimulation; sphincter repair; sphincteroplasty

Document Type: Research Article

Affiliations: 1: Department of Biosurgery and Surgical Technology, St Mary’s Hospital, Imperial College, London, UK 2: Academic Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Department of Urogynecology, St Mary’s Hospital, Imperial College, London, UK

Publication date: 01 September 2008

  • Access Key
  • Free content
  • Partial Free content
  • New content
  • Open access content
  • Partial Open access content
  • Subscribed content
  • Partial Subscribed content
  • Free trial content
Cookie Policy
Cookie Policy
Ingenta Connect website makes use of cookies so as to keep track of data that you have filled in. I am Happy with this Find out more