Is Blepharoplasty Cost-effective? Utility Analysis of Dermatochalasis and Cost-effectiveness Analysis of Upper Eyelid Blepharoplasty.

PURPOSE: This cross-sectional prospective study measured utility values of upper eyelid dermatochalasis to quantify its impact on quality of life and assess cost-effectiveness of upper blepharoplasty. METHODS: Utility of dermatochalasis was assessed using the standard reference gamble and time trade-off methods, with dual anchor points of perfect eye function and perfect health. The utility value obtained was used to create a Markov model and run a cost-effectiveness analysis of blepharoplasty as a treatment for dermatochalasis while utilizing the societal perspective. RESULTS: One hundred three patients with dermatochalasis recruited from an urban outpatient ophthalmology clinic completed the utility survey. The authors determined utility values for dermatochalasis ranging from 0.74 to 0.92 depending on the measurement method (standard reference gamble/time trade-off) and anchor points. The cost-effectiveness analysis yielded an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $3,146 per quality-adjusted life year, well under the conventional willingness-to-pay threshold of $50,000 per quality-adjusted life year. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis with Monte Carlo simulation demonstrated that blepharoplasty would be cost-effective in 88.1% of cases at this willingness-to-pay threshold. CONCLUSIONS: Dermatochalasis has an impact on quality of life that is significantly associated with level of perceived functional impairment. Rising health care costs have underscored the importance of providing value-based treatment to patients, and the results of this study suggest that blepharoplasty is a cost-effective treatment option for symptomatic bilateral upper eyelid dermatochalasis.

Axial length and pharmacologic pupillary dilation in highly myopic patients.

PURPOSE: To determine how high myopia impacts pharmacological pupillary dilation, and to evaluate the relationship between the extent of pharmacologic pupillary dilation and axial length. METHODS: Patients were grouped into high myopes, defined as one or both eyes having a refractive error greater than - 6 diopters, and controls (between - 2 and + 2 diopters). Dilation was achieved with 1 drop each of tropicamide 1% and phenylephrine 2.5%. Pupil size was measured at full and dim light prior to dilation, then 15 and 30 min after dilation. Biometry was measured for each patient. Statistical analyses were performed using the Mann-Whitney-Wilcoxon tests, two-sample Welch's t-tests, and linear mixed effect models and generalized estimating equations models accounting for inter-eye correlation. RESULTS: Forty patients (20 high myopes and 20 controls, 80 eyes total) participated in the study. High myopes had larger pupils at baseline and achieved significantly greater pupillary size (7.08 mm, 95% CI: 6.97 to 7.19 mm) than controls (6.23 mm, 95% CI: 5.94 to 6.52 mm) after 30 min of dilation (P < .0005). Fully dilated pupil size at 30 min was significantly correlated with both refractive error (r = - 0.57, P < .0005) and axial length (r = 0.47, P < .0005). Generalized estimating equations and linear mixed effect models identified other predictive variables of pupil size after dilation including age and white-to-white diameter. CONCLUSIONS: Highly myopic patients dilate to a larger pupillary size compared to other patients. Predicting dilation based on extent of myopia could facilitate intraocular surgery planning and reduce clinic wait times for myopic patients.

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Light Adjustable Lens Compared to Monofocal Intraocular Lens in Cataract Surgery.

PURPOSE: To analyze the cost-effectiveness of the Light Adjustable Lens (LAL; RxSight) in comparison to a monofocal intraocular lens (IOL) for individuals undergoing cataract surgery in both eyes. METHODS: A cost-effectiveness analysis was performed using a Markov model that simulated the patient outcomes and costs associated with undergoing cataract surgery with the LAL or monofocal IOL. Cost-effectiveness was determined using the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER), a measure that quantifies the incremental cost in dollars per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained. Treatments with the ICER below the willingness-to-pay threshold (WTP) of $50,000/QALY were considered cost-effective. The model was also evaluated for the impact of uncertainties in parameters using one-way sensitivity and probabilistic sensitivity analyses. RESULTS: The cost-effectiveness analysis showed that the LAL is cost-effective compared to monofocal IOLs in patients undergoing cataract surgery, with ICERs of $9,792/QALY (health care perspective) and $10,072/QALY (societal perspective) both significantly below the WTP. The model was most sensitive to patient age, market cost of the LAL, and proportion of patients with residual astigmatism following cataract surgery. The probabilistic sensitivity analysis showed that cataract surgeries in patients starting at age 65 years were cost-effective in 94% of the simulations at a WTP of $50,000/QALY. CONCLUSIONS: From both health care and societal perspectives, the study shows cataract surgeries performed with the LAL are cost-effective when compared to those performed with a monofocal IOL. More studies are needed to compare the LAL to other premium lenses that also provide patients with excellent visual outcomes at a higher cost. [J Refract Surg. 2023;39(11):777-782.].

Cost-effectiveness analysis of endoscopic dacryocystorhinostomy using Markov modelling.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the cost-effectiveness of endoscopic dacryocystorhinostomy (DCR). METHODS: We constructed a Markov model in which patients with nasolacrimal duct obstruction received endoscopic DCR or no surgery. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios, 1-way sensitivity analyses, and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were used to evaluate for model sensitivity to multiple model inputs. RESULTS: Endoscopic DCR was found to be cost-effective with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of US$2162 per quality-adjusted life-year. The model was most sensitive to the health utility deduction from epiphora. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis found endoscopic DCR to be cost-effective over no surgery 93.7% of the time. CONCLUSIONS: Endoscopic DCR is a cost-effective treatment for patients with epiphora. The model is very sensitive to the negative effect epiphora has on quality of life. With the advancement of health care technology and surgical techniques, the success rates of endoscopic DCR continue to improve and to be an even more efficacious and economical treatment for nasolacrimal duct obstruction.

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Multifocal Intraocular Lenses Compared to Monofocal Intraocular Lenses in Cataract Surgery.

PURPOSE: To determine the cost-effectiveness of multifocal intraocular lenses (IOLs) compared to that of monofocal IOLs from a societal and health care sector perspective. DESIGN: Cost-effectiveness analysis. METHODS: A Markov model was constructed that simulated patients who received either multifocal or monofocal IOLs during cataract surgery. Postoperatively, patients could experience spectacle dependence, glare, and haloes. Cost-effectiveness was determined by measuring the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) as the incremental cost in dollars per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained. Treatments with an ICER below the standard willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold of $50,000/QALY were considered cost effective. One-way sensitivity analyses and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were used to evaluate model sensitivity to cost, utilities, and other model inputs. RESULTS: Multifocal IOLs were associated with a 0.71 QALY increase at an increased cost of $3,415 compared with monofocal IOLs, leading to an ICER of $4,805/QALY from the societal and health care sector perspectives. The cost-effectiveness model was most sensitive to patient age, probability of spectacle dependence with multifocal IOLs and monofocal IOLs, and the disutility of glasses. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis found multifocal IOLs to be the cost-effective option compared with monofocal IOLs 99.9% of the time at a WTP threshold of $50,000/QALY. CONCLUSIONS: From a societal and health care perspective, multifocal IOLs would be considered a cost-effective strategy compared to monofocal IOLs for patients who desire a higher chance to be spectacle-free. However, more studies need to be conducted to further evaluate the efficacy of multifocal IOLs.

An updated assessment of morbidity and mortality following skull base surgical approaches.

OBJECTIVES: Updated multi-institutional database studies assessing perioperative risk factors on 30-day morbidity and mortality after skull base surgeries are limited. We aim to identify perioperative risk factors and report the incidence of 30-day morbidity and mortality in adult patients after skull base surgery. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We queried the 2007-2016 American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement program database to identify patients who underwent anterior, middle, or posterior skull base surgery. We performed multivariable logistic regression to identify risk factors associated with 30-day morbidity and mortality. Postoperative events were compared between propensity score matched cohorts (no morbidity versus 30-day morbidity). RESULTS: The final analysis included 1028 adult (≥18 years old) patients. The incidence of 30-morbidity and mortality was 14.6% and 1.6%, respectively. Postoperative ventilator dependence (52.9%) followed by pneumonia (23.5%) and unplanned intubation (23.5%) had the highest prevalence among those with 30-day mortality. The adjusted odds of 30-day morbidity was significantly higher among patients with functional dependency, American Society of Anesthesiologists Physical Status ≥4, hyponatremia, and anemia (p < 0.05). The adjusted odds of 30-day mortality was significantly increased among patients with sepsis, bleeding disorder, disseminated cancer, and older age (p < 0.05). CONCLUSION: Clinical perioperative factors are significantly associated with 30-day morbidity and mortality after skull base surgery. The reported rate of 30-day morbidity and mortality was similar to earlier studies and therefore highlights the need for continued quality improvement.