An economic comparison of female sterilization of hysteroscopic tubal occlusion with laparoscopic bilateral tubal ligation

Dale F. Kraemer, Po Yin Yen, Mark Nichols

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

34 Scopus citations

Abstract

Background: This study compares the expected 5-year costs for permanent sterilization in women between nonincisional hysteroscopic tubal occlusion with the Essure® system performed in an office setting and laparoscopic bilateral tubal ligation (LBTL). Study Design: An economic decision tree is used to predict outcomes and costs to compare these two procedures from a US Medicaid perspective over a 5-year time horizon. Results: Expected costs are $2367 for Essure® and $3545 for LBTL (Essure® saves $1178 or 33% of LBTL costs). Sensitivity analyses show Essure® has lower expected costs across all values considered. If the cost for a LBTL procedure were to decrease by 20% and the cost for Essure® to increase by 20%, Essure® would have still have lower expected costs. Conclusion: Office-based sterilization for women using Essure® can lead to substantial cost savings over 5 years compared to LBTL. This conclusion is robust to varying analytic inputs.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)254-260
Number of pages7
JournalContraception
Volume80
Issue number3
DOIs
StatePublished - Sep 1 2009

Keywords

  • Female sterilization
  • Hysteroscopic tubal occlusion
  • Laparoscopic bilateral tubal ligation

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Reproductive Medicine
  • Obstetrics and Gynecology

Fingerprint Dive into the research topics of 'An economic comparison of female sterilization of hysteroscopic tubal occlusion with laparoscopic bilateral tubal ligation'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this