Cost-effectiveness of Canal Wall-Up vs Canal Wall-Down Mastoidectomy: A Modeling Study

Objective To assess the relative lifetime costs, benefits, and cost-effectiveness between the 2 approaches, canal wall-up (CWU) and canal wall-down (CWD) tympanomastoidectomy, used in the treatment of cholesteatomas. Study Design Markov state transition model. Setting Tertiary academic health system...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Otolaryngology-head and neck surgery 2022-09, Vol.167 (3), p.552-559
Main Authors: Bu, Daniel D., Schwam, Zachary G., Kaul, Vivian F., Wong, Kevin, Fan, Caleb, Wanna, George B., Cosetti, Maura K., Perez, Enrique
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
canal wall down
canal wall up
cholesteatoma
cost‐effectiveness
Markov model
mastoidectomy
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:Objective To assess the relative lifetime costs, benefits, and cost-effectiveness between the 2 approaches, canal wall-up (CWU) and canal wall-down (CWD) tympanomastoidectomy, used in the treatment of cholesteatomas. Study Design Markov state transition model. Setting Tertiary academic health system. Methods A Markov state transition model was used to simulate outcomes across the patient lifetime. Outcome and complication probabilities were obtained from the existing literature. Costs were calculated from the payer perspective, with procedure, hospital, clinic, and physician cost derived from Medicare reimbursement. Quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) were used to represent effectiveness and utility. One-way and probability sensitivity analyses (PSAs) were conducted. Results The base case analysis, assuming a 40-year-old patient, yielded a lifetime cost of $14,214 for a patient treated with the CWU approach assuming second-look surgery and $22,290 with a CWD approach. CWU and CWD generated a benefit of 17.11 and 17.30 QALYs, respectively. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for CWU was $43,237 per QALY. The Monte Carlo PSA validated the base case scenario. Using a standard $50,000 willingness-to-pay threshold, CWD was the more cost-effective approach and was selected 54.8% of the time by the simulation. Conclusion Both CWU and CWD were found to be cost-effective, with CWD being cost-effective 54.8% of the time at a WTP threshold of $50,000. The assumptions used in the analysis were validated by the results of 1-way and PSA.
ISSN:0194-5998
1097-6817
DOI:10.1177/01945998221076051