IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/aphecp/v16y2018i4d10.1007_s40258-018-0396-4.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Intracapsular Tonsillectomy and Total Tonsillectomy for Pediatric Obstructive Sleep Apnea

Author

Listed:
  • Kenneth Bagwell

    (Yale School of Medicine)

  • Xiao Wu

    (Yale School of Medicine)

  • Eric D. Baum

    (Connecticut Pediatric Otolaryngology, LLC)

  • Ajay Malhotra

    (Yale School of Medicine)

Abstract

Purpose We performed an economic evaluation using a decision-tree model to analyze the relative cost effectiveness from the United States Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) perspective of two different methods of tonsillectomy (traditional total tonsillectomy and partial intracapsular) for pediatric obstructive sleep apnea (OSA). Materials and Methods Procedural costs were drawn from published literature and Medicare values. Effectiveness and probabilities were drawn from medical literature. Primary intervention was monopolar-technique total tonsillectomy or microdebrider-assisted partial intracapsular tonsillectomy. Secondary interventions included operative control of hemorrhage, treatment of severe dehydration, or revision tonsillectomy. The decision model starts with pediatric patients with OSA, choosing between total and partial tonsillectomy. Outcomes were measured by costs (US dollars), effectiveness [quality-adjusted life year (QALY)], and a willingness-to-pay threshold of US$100,000/QALY. Base case analysis, probabilistic sensitivity analysis (PSA) and deterministic sensitivity analyses were performed. Primary outcome was incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) for each of the two tonsillectomy techniques. Results Base case analysis demonstrated that total tonsillectomy was more cost effective at US$12,453.40 per QALY gained. In PSA, 82.84% of the simulations show total tonsillectomy to be the more cost-effective strategy. Deterministic sensitivity analyses showed that when the rate of OSA recurrence is lower than 3.12%, partial tonsillectomy would be more cost effective. When the failure rate of partial tonsillectomy is below 1.0%, it is more cost effective even when total tonsillectomy is 100% successful. Conclusion Study results suggest that overall monopolar-technique total tonsillectomy is more cost effective. However, with varying adjustments for disutility caused by procedural complications, intracapsular tonsillectomy could become a more cost-effective technique for treating pediatric OSA.

Suggested Citation

  • Kenneth Bagwell & Xiao Wu & Eric D. Baum & Ajay Malhotra, 2018. "Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Intracapsular Tonsillectomy and Total Tonsillectomy for Pediatric Obstructive Sleep Apnea," Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, Springer, vol. 16(4), pages 527-535, August.
  • Handle: RePEc:spr:aphecp:v:16:y:2018:i:4:d:10.1007_s40258-018-0396-4
    DOI: 10.1007/s40258-018-0396-4
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s40258-018-0396-4
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s40258-018-0396-4?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:spr:aphecp:v:16:y:2018:i:4:d:10.1007_s40258-018-0396-4. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.