COST ANALYSIS OF SCLERAL BUCKLE, PARS PLANA VITRECTOMY, AND PARS PLANA VITRECTOMY WITH SCLERAL BUCKLE FOR RETINAL DETACHMENT REPAIR.

PURPOSE: To compare the cost and utility of scleral buckle (SB), pars plana vitrectomy (PPV), and PPV with SB (PPV/SB) for moderately complex rhegmatogenous retinal detachment repair. METHODS: Cost-utility analysis using data from the Primary Retinal Detachment Outcomes Study. The model estimated costs, lifetime utility, and lifetime cost per quality-adjusted life year for treatment of moderately complex rhegmatogenous retinal detachment with SB, PPV, or PPV/SB. Data from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services were used to calculate costs in hospital and ambulatory surgery center settings. RESULTS: Total costs (2020 US dollars) for repair of a moderately complex rhegmatogenous retinal detachment in hospital (ambulatory surgery center) settings were $5,975 ($3,774) for the SB group, $8,125 ($5,082) for the PPV group, and $7,551 ($4,713) for the PPV/SB group. The estimated lifetime quality-adjusted life years gained were 5.4, 4.7, and 4.7 in the SB, PPV, and PPV/SB groups, respectively. The cost per quality-adjusted life year for hospital and ambulatory surgery center settings was $1,106 a ($699) for the SB group, $1729 ($1,081) for the PPV group, and $1,607 ($1,003) for the PPV/SB group. CONCLUSION: Scleral buckle, PPV, and PPV/SB yielded very favorable cost-utility results for the repair of moderately complex rhegmatogenous retinal detachment, with slightly better results for SB, compared with current willingness to pay standards.

Cost Analysis of Routine Vitrectomy Surgery.

PURPOSE: To use electronic health record (EHR) time logs to calculate the complete cost profiles of routine pars plana vitrectomy surgery. DESIGN: Economic analysis. PARTICIPANTS: Patients undergoing elective vitrectomy procedures (Current Procedural Terminology codes 67040, 67041, and 67042) at Vanderbilt University Medical Center in fiscal year 2019. METHODS: Process flow mapping for routine vitrectomy surgery was used to define the operative episode. De-identified time logs were sourced from an internal perioperative data warehouse to calculate procedure-level durations. The costs of materials and overhead were calculated from internal financial management software. Costs per minute for space, equipment, and personnel were based on internal figures. These inputs were used for a time-driven activity-based costing (TDABC) analysis. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Complete cost profile of routine pars plana vitrectomy surgery. RESULTS: Cost analysis of routine vitrectomy surgery resulted in a total cost of $7169.79 per patient, which was $2053.85 more than the maximum Medicare reimbursement for the equivalent episode, $5115.93. Vitrectomy cases do not break even unless the case duration is fewer than 26.81 minutes, overhead is reduced by 53.78%, or reimbursement is increased by 40.15%. Reimbursement does not compensate for variable costs alone for cases lasting longer than 55.09 minutes. In the cohort used here, 68% of cases are completely unprofitable, with increasing losses directly proportional to the length of the case. CONCLUSIONS: This analysis showed that true costs for routine vitrectomy procedures are significantly more than the maximum allowable Medicare reimbursement. Academic ophthalmology departments may benefit from more accurate costing approaches using existing EHR data. These approaches may be informative for policy discussion regarding appropriate reimbursement.

Cost-effectiveness of the triple procedure - phacovitrectomy with posterior capsulotomy compared to phacovitrectomy and sequential procedures.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of the triple procedure (phacovitrectomy + posterior capsulotomy, PhacoPPVc) compared to the double- (phacovitrectomy, PhacoPPV) or single sequential procedures. METHODS: Prospective study on 31 eyes from 31 patients (mean age: 72.1 ± 9.1 years; 55% females) was performed with a preoperative decision to undergo only pars plana vitrectomy (PPV) (26%) or PhacoPPV (74%) and/or posterior capsulotomy based upon presence or absence of lens opacification or pseudophakia. Time during and between surgeries, surgical procedure codes, medical and transport costs, outcome and likelihood of complications after surgery were all included in the analysis. Societal perspectives and visual acuity were considered as measures of quality of adjusted life years (QALYs). RESULTS: About 23 eyes underwent triple procedure and eight eyes underwent vitrectomy only (mean surgery times: 35.9 and 24.0 min, respectively). Posterior capsulotomy took on average 30 s, while preparation and cataract procedure took 13.0 min. The patients travelled on average 80km (average cost: $280.12) to the surgery unit. The average reimbursement fee for the day procedures ranged between $174.17 (YAG capsulotomy; Diagnosis Related Group (DRG): 0.034), $1045.48 (Phaco + intraocular lens (IOL); DRG: 0.204) and $1701.32 (PPV; DRG: 0.332). The combined procedures excluded lens and laser reimbursements, while the calculated reimbursements for the double/triple procedures were $2713.08/$2901.45, respectively, without significant loss of QALYs. PhacoPPVc was found to be unequivocally cost-effective, while PhacoPPV remained cost saving compared to sequential procedures. CONCLUSION: This study confirms that the triple procedure has benefits to the patients, health institution and surgeon. For patients, it saves them travel and healing time; for health institution, it justifies the calculated higher costs and need for higher reimbursement for the double/triple procedures, which are cost saving.

The estimated healthcare cost of diabetic retinopathy in Indonesia and its projection for 2025.

PURPOSE: To estimate the total healthcare cost associated with diabetic retinopathy (DR) in type 2 diabetes in Indonesia and its projection for 2025. METHODS: A prevalence-based cost-of-illness model was constructed from previous population-based DR study. Projection for 2025 was derived from estimated diabetes population in 2025. Direct treatment costs of DR were estimated from the perspective of healthcare. Patient perspective costs were obtained from thorough interview including only transportation cost and lost of working days related to treatment. We developed four cost-of-illness models according to DR severity level, DR without necessary treatment, needing laser treatment, laser +intravitreal (IVT) injection and laser + IVT +vitrectomy. All costs were estimated in 2017 US$. RESULTS: The healthcare costs of DR in Indonesia were estimated to be $2.4 billion in 2017 and $8.9 billion in 2025. The total cost in 2017 consisted of the cost for no DR and mild-moderate non-proliferative DR (NPDR) requiring eye screening ($25.9 million), severe NPDR or proliferative DR (PDR) requiring laser treatment ($0.25 billion), severe NPDR or PDR requiring both laser and IVT injection ($1.75 billion) and advance level of PDR requiring vitrectomy ($0.44 billion). CONCLUSIONS: The estimated healthcare cost of DR in Indonesia in 2017 was considerably high, nearly 2% of the 2017 national state budget, and projected to increase significantly to more than threefold in 2025. The highest cost may incur for DR requiring both laser and IVT injection. Therefore, public health intervention to delay or prevent severe DR may substantially reduce the healthcare cost of DR in Indonesia.

Cost Analysis of Pneumatic Retinopexy versus Pars Plana Vitrectomy for Rhegmatogenous Retinal Detachment.

PURPOSE: To perform a cost-utility analysis and comparison between pneumatic retinopexy (PR) and pars plana vitrectomy (PPV) for primary rhegmatogenous retinal detachment (RRD) repair. DESIGN: A cost-utility analysis using decision analysis. PARTICIPANTS: There were no participants. METHODS: A decision analysis model was constructed based on results from the Pneumatic Retinopexy versus Vitrectomy for the Management of Primary Rhegmatogenous Retinal Detachment Outcomes Randomized Trial to calculate the costs, lifetime usefulness, and lifetime cost per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) for the treatment of RRD with PR or PPV. Data from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services were used to calculate the associated adjusted costs in facility and nonfacility practice settings. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Cost of intervention, utility gain over natural history, QALY gained, and cost per QALY. RESULTS: The total imputed costs (all in 2019 United States dollars) for primary repair of RRD in facility and nonfacility settings were $4451 and $2456, respectively, in the PR group and $7108 and $4514, respectively, in the PPV group. The estimated lifetime QALYs gained were 5.9 and 5.4 in the PR and PPV groups, respectively. The cost per QALY for facility and nonfacility settings was $751 and $414, respectively, in the PR group and $1312 and $833, respectively, in the PPV group. CONCLUSIONS: Cost-utility analysis of both PR and PPV demonstrated excellent results for both methods for RRD repair, with the metrics for PR somewhat more favorable independent of the practice settings (facility or nonfacility based).

Cost-Effectiveness of Limited Vitrectomy for Vision-Degrading Myodesopsia.

PURPOSE: Patients afflicted with clinically significant vitreous floaters suffer from vision-degrading myodesopsia, characterized by impairment in contrast sensitivity function (CSF) and decreased quality of life. This study determined the cost-effectiveness of limited vitrectomy for this condition. DESIGN: Retrospective, interventional case series and third-party insurer cost-utility analysis. METHODS: Sixty-seven patients suffering from unilateral vitreous floaters (20 non-myopic patients with posterior vitreous detachment [PVD]; 17 myopic patients [>-2 diopters] without PVD; 30 myopic patients with PVD) completed the National Eye Institute Visual Function Questionnaire (VFQ-39) and were tested with best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) and CSF measurements before and after limited vitrectomy. A reference case cost-utility analysis was performed. RESULTS: The mean VFQ-39 increased 19% (P < 0.00001) after surgery, with general vision improving 27% for the entire group and 37% for non-myopic PVD (P < 0.00001 for each). VFQ-39 correlations with time tradeoff utilities indicated a 14.4% improvement in quality of life. Mean BCVA improved 13.5% postoperatively (P < 0.00001) and CSF improved 53% (P < 0.00001). The incremental patient value gain conferred by limited vitrectomy was 2.38 quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), and the average cost-utility ratio in 2018 U.S. real dollars was $1,574/QALY. CONCLUSIONS: Limited vitrectomy for vision-degrading myodesopsia is clinically effective, in that it improves BCVA, CSF, and patient well-being. It is also highly cost-effective ($1,574/QALY), with an average cost-utility ratio vs. no therapy that is superior to cataract surgery ($2,262/QALY), amblyopia therapy ($2,710/QALY), and retinal detachment repair ($45,304/QALY). Myopic patients without PVD had the lowest cost-utility ratio of all ($1,338/QALY).

Anatomic, Visual, and Financial Outcomes for Traditional and Nontraditional Primary Pneumatic Retinopexy for Retinal Detachment.

PURPOSE: To determine factors predictive of anatomic, visual, and financial outcomes after traditional and nontraditional primary pneumatic retinopexy (PR) for rhegmatogenous retinal detachment (RD). DESIGN: Retrospective interventional case series and cost comparison. METHODS: Participants: Total of 178 eyes (156 patients) with PR-repaired primary RD by a single surgeon at a clinical practice from January 2001 to December 2013 and followed for ≥1 year. The cohort had 2 subgroups: traditional (TPR) and nontraditional (NTPR) PR. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Characteristics associated with best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) and anatomic outcomes. Cost analysis and potential cost savings comparing PR to scleral buckle and vitrectomy. RESULTS: One hundred thirty-one of 178 eyes (73.5%) were successfully treated at 1 year (postoperative year 1): 72.8% (75/103) in TPR and 74.6% (56/75) in NTPR. Macula-off detachment (-0.44 logMAR, P < .001) and clock hours of RD (-0.84 logMAR, P < .001) correlated with improved BCVA; pseudophakia (0.26 logMAR, P = .002) and inferior retinal tears (0.62 logMAR, P = .009) correlated with worsening BCVA. Pseudophakia (-0.15, P = .03), inferior quadrant RD (-0.27, P < .001), and proliferative vitreoretinopathy (-0.68, P < .001) correlated with anatomic failure. Total average cost for TPR and NTPR was $1248.37 ± $882.11 and $1471.91 ± $942.84, respectively (P = .10). PR had a potential cost savings of 62% and 60.8% when compared to scleral buckle and vitrectomy, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: PR results in successful anatomic and visual outcomes in both TPR and NTPR repair of primary RD. Preoperative pseudophakia is associated with worse visual outcomes and less anatomic success. The cost of primary PR and subsequent procedures to achieve final anatomic success was not significantly different between TPR and NTPR, and supports the possible cost-effectiveness of expanded indications for PR.

Updated Cost-Effectiveness of Intravitreal Ocriplasmin for Vitreomacular Adhesion and Macular Hole.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study is to provide an updated assessment of cost-efficacy of intravitreal ocriplasmin (IVO) for vitreomacular adhesion (VMA) and macular holes (MH). PATIENTS AND METHODS: This was a single-center, multiple-physician, institutional review board-approved, retrospective, 15-month cost-effectiveness analysis study (January 2015 to April 2016). Clinical charts and billing records of 247 patients with VMA and MH were reviewed. Patients were divided into group 1 (VMA and MH treated by pars plana vitrectomy [PPV]), group 2 (VMA and MH treated by IVO), and group 3 (VMA treated by IVO). Success rates of interventions in each group were compared, including cost-effectiveness, cost per line-year, and cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY). RESULTS: Success rates for initial intervention were 98% in group 1, 55.6% in group 2, and 67.7% in group 3. Cost of PPV at our institution was $6,538.00 and cost of IVO (2016) was $3,480.00. Using a cohort-based computer Markov model, the treatment decision tree demonstrated group 1 was less cost-effective, with cost per line of $2,654.39, cost per line-year saved of $185.62, and cost per QALY of $6,187.00. Group 2 was cost-effective with cost per line of $2,456.25, cost per line-year saved of $171.77, and cost per QALY of $5,726.00. The difference in cost-effectiveness showed IVO was more cost-effective than PPV, with a difference in cost per line of $198.14, cost per line-year saved of $13.85, and cost per QALY of $461.00. CONCLUSIONS: IVO is a more cost-effective intervention than vitrectomy for the treatment of VMA and MH in the setting of judicious use in appropriate patients. The success rate of IVO in our patient population was greater than currently published rates and most certainly impacted probability of cost-efficacy. Further research targeting optimizing IVO success rate is needed. [Ophthalmic Surg Lasers Imaging Retina. 2018;49:e240-e248.].

INTERNAL LIMITING MEMBRANE PEELING DURING PARS PLANA VITRECTOMY FOR RHEGMATOGENOUS RETINAL DETACHMENT: Cost Analysis, Review of the Literature, and Meta-analysis.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the visual and potential economic impact of primary internal limiting membrane (ILM) peeling in primary treatment of rhegmatogenous retinal detachment. METHODS: A PubMed search was performed to extract data regarding the rate of epiretinal membrane formation and the rate of secondary pars plana vitrectomy with membrane peel after repair of rhegmatogenous retinal detachment with or without ILM peeling. Data were aggregated and analyzed in a meta-analysis. This information was used to perform a cost analysis to determine the economic ramifications of primary ILM peeling. RESULTS: Six included studies compared the outcomes of eyes receiving pars plana vitrectomy for rhegmatogenous retinal detachment repair with and without primary ILM peel. The cumulative rate of epiretinal membrane formation was 29% (86/295) in the eyes without ILM peel and 3% (8/289) in the eyes with ILM peel. The cumulative rate of secondary pars plana vitrectomy/membrane peel was 16% (22/141) in the eyes without ILM peel and 0% (0/158) in the eyes with ILM peel. The weighted summary point estimate odds ratio was 0.083 (95% confidence interval 0.042-0.164), indicating a statistically significant protective effect across the 6 studies of ILM peeling and the development of epiretinal membrane. Based on published data, the average dollars saved by conducting a primary ILM peel was $615 in a facility setting and $364 in an ambulatory surgical center. CONCLUSION: Published, mainly retrospective, data suggest that primary ILM peel in rhegmatogenous retinal detachment repair may have a significant reduction in the rate of postoperative epiretinal membrane and may lessen the need for secondary pars plana vitrectomy/membrane peel. Furthermore, from an economic perspective, the reduction in the need for secondary surgery may justify the higher cost with primary ILM peel.

Cost Evaluation of Early Vitrectomy versus Panretinal Photocoagulation and Intravitreal Ranibizumab for Proliferative Diabetic Retinopathy.

PURPOSE: To evaluate costs and cost-utility of early vitrectomy (pars plana vitrectomy [PPV]) compared with panretinal photocoagulation (PRP) and intravitreal ranibizumab (IVR) for proliferative diabetic retinopathy (PDR) without diabetic macular edema. DESIGN: A decision analysis model of cost-utility. PARTICIPANTS: There were no participants. METHODS: A decision analysis was based on results from the Diabetic Retinopathy Clinical Research Network Protocol S comparing treatment of PRP with IVR (0.3 mg) in PDR without incident macular edema to model the total 2-year costs and outcomes for each treatment scenario. These values were compared with the 2-year hypothetical costs of early PPV for PDR. Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services data were used to calculate associated modeled costs in a hospital/facility-based and nonfacility setting. Cost-utility was calculated on the basis of the preserved visual utility and estimated life years remaining. In addition, costs for lifetime treatment were modeled for all scenarios and used to calculate lifetime quality-adjusted life years (QALY) costs for each scenario. Sensitivity analyses were performed to evaluate the impact of the model's assumptions. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Cost of treatment, utility, and cost per QALY. RESULTS: The modeled cost per QALY of treatment for PDR for 2 years of utility in the facility (nonfacility) setting was $163 988 ($102 559) in the PRP group, $436 992 ($326 424) in the IVR group, and $181 144 ($107 965) in the PPV group. Sensitivity analysis showed that both IVR and PPV groups would have equivalent costs per QALY over the first 2 years if 78% (facility) and 80% (nonfacility) of patients in the PPV group required additional treatment with IVR (at the dose of 10.1 injections as in Protocol S). Beyond 2 years, the cost per QALY in the facility (nonfacility) setting was calculated as $61 695 ($21 752) in the PRP group, $338 348 ($239 741) in the IVR group, and $63 942 ($22 261) in the PPV group. CONCLUSIONS: Early PPV as a strategy for treatment of PDR without macular edema demonstrates cost-utility similar to management with PRP and more favorable cost-utility compared with IVR in the short term. This advantage over IVR continues when lifetime costs are factored.

Cost-Utility of Evaluation for Posterior Vitreous Detachment and Prophylaxis of Retinal Detachment.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the costs and cost-utility of examination for posterior vitreous detachment (PVD) and treatment of associated pathology, and of managing various other peripheral retinal disorders to prevent retinal detachment (RD). DESIGN: A decision analysis model of cost-utility. PARTICIPANTS: There were no participants. METHODS: Published retrospective data on the natural course of PVD, retinal tears, and lattice degeneration were used to quantitate the visual benefits of examination and treatment. Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services data were used to calculate associated modeled costs in a hospital/facility-based and nonfacility/ambulatory surgical center (ASC)-based setting. Published standards of utility for a given level of visual acuity were used to derive costs and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Cost of evaluation and treatment, utility of defined health states, QALY, and cost per QALY. RESULTS: The modeled cost of evaluation of a patient with PVD and treatment of associated pathology in the facility/hospital (nonfacility/ASC)-based setting was $65 to $190 ($25-$71) depending on whether a single or 2-examination protocol was used. The cost per QALY saved was $255 to $638/QALY ($100-$239/QALY). Treatment of a symptomatic horseshoe tear resulted in a net cost savings of $1749 ($1314) and improved utility, whereas treatment of an asymptomatic horseshoe tear resulted in $2981/QALY ($1436/QALY). Treatment of asymptomatic lattice degeneration in an eye in which the fellow eye had a history of RD resulted in $4414/QALY ($2187/QALY). CONCLUSIONS: Evaluation and management of incident acute PVD (and symptomatic horseshoe tears) offer a low cost and a favorable cost-utility (low $/QALY) as a result of the minimization of the cost and morbidity associated with the development of RD, thus justifying current practice standards.

Cost of diabetic retinopathy and macular oedema in a population, an eight year follow up.

BACKGROUND: Prospective, population-based study of an 8-year follow up. To determine the direct cost of diabetic retinopathy [DR], evaluating our screening programme and the cost of treating DR, focusing on diabetic macular oedema [DMO] after anti-vascular endothelial growth factor [anti-VEGF] treatment. METHODS: A total of 15,396 diabetes mellitus [DM] patients were studied. We determined the cost-effectiveness of our screening programme against an annual programme by applying the Markov simulation model. We also compared the cost-effectiveness of anti-VEGF treatment to laser treatment for screened patients with DMO. RESULTS: The cost of our 2.5-year screening programme was as follows: per patient with any-DR, €482.85 ± 35.14; per sight-threatening diabetic retinopathy [STDR] patient, €1528.26 ± 114.94; and €1826.98 ± 108.26 per DMO patient. Comparatively, an annual screening programme would result in increases as follows: 0.77 in QALY per patient with any-DR and 0.6 and 0.44 per patient with STDR or DMO, respectively, with an incremental cost-effective ratio [ICER] of €1096.88 for any-DR, €4571.2 for STDR and €7443.28 per DMO patient. Regarding diagnosis and treatment, the mean annual total cost per patient with DMO was €777.09 ± 49.45 for the laser treated group and €7153.62 ± 212.15 for the anti-VEGF group, with a QALY gain of 0.21, the yearly mean cost was €7153.62 ± 212.15 per patient, and the ICER was €30,361. CONCLUSIONS: Screening for diabetic retinopathy every 2.5 years is cost-effective, but should be adjusted to a patient's personal risk factors. Treatment with anti-VEGF for DMO has increased costs, but the cost-utility increases to 0.21 QALY per patient.

Direct cost of pars plana vitrectomy for the treatment of macular hole, epiretinal membrane and vitreomacular traction: a bottom-up approach.

PURPOSE: The direct cost to the National Health Service (NHS) in England of pars plana vitrectomy (PPV) is unknown since a bottom-up costing exercise has not been undertaken. Healthcare resource group (HRG) costing relies on a top-down approach. We aimed to quantify the direct cost of intermediate complexity PPV. METHODS: Five NHS vitreoretinal units prospectively recorded all consumables, equipment and staff salaries during PPV undertaken for vitreomacular traction, epiretinal membrane and macular hole. Out-of-surgery costs between admission and discharge were estimated using a representative accounting method. RESULTS: The average patient time in theatre for 57 PPVs was 72 min. The average in-surgery cost for staff was £297, consumables £619, and equipment £82 (total £997). The average out-of-surgery costs were £260, including nursing and medical staff, other consumables, eye drops and hospitalisation. The total cost was therefore £1634, including 30 % overheads. This cost estimate was an under-estimate because it did not include out-of-theatre consumables or equipment. The average reimbursed HRG tariff was £1701. CONCLUSIONS: The cost of undertaking PPV of intermediate complexity is likely to be higher than the reimbursed tariff, except for hospitals with high throughput, where amortisation costs benefit from economies of scale. Although this research was set in England, the methodology may provide a useful template for other countries.

Unassisted Scleral Depression During Vitrectomy Surgery: Two Simple, Cost-Effective Techniques.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: The ability to visualize and work in the region of the vitreous base during vitrectomy surgery is important. However, this usually requires the use of a surgical assistant for scleral depression or expensive chandelier systems requiring extra incisions. The authors describe two alternative simple, cost-effective techniques to independently and simultaneously view and cut (or apply laser) in this difficult anatomical region. TECHNIQUE: Light-pipe assisted scleral depression using a standard light pipe and ring depressor indentation while maintaining two intraocular instruments are described. CONCLUSION: The described techniques are simple, cost-effective, safe, suitable for phakic and pseudo-phakic patients, and allow the surgeon to operate independently with maximum control.

Cost-utility analysis of rhegmatogenous retinal detachment surgery in Shanghai, China.

PURPOSE: To perform a short-term and a long-term cost-utility analysis of rhegmatogenous retinal detachment (RRD) surgery in Shanghai, China. METHODS: A total of 117 patients who underwent RRD surgery at Shanghai First People's Hospital, Affiliated Shanghai Jiaotong University, and then underwent follow-up for at least 1 year, were included in the study. Costs associated with RRD surgery and time trade-off utility values before and after surgery were recorded. Short-term analysis was made for 1 year. Quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) gained by RRD surgery over the lifetime were calculated at a 3% discount rate in the long-term analysis. This study used the bootstrap method in statistical analysis and one-way sensitivity analyses to test robustness of the results. RESULTS: Compared with no treatment, the mean incremental costs of RRD surgery was 11,384 Chinese yuan (CN¥) (US$1751); the mean additional QALYs gained was 0.05 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.04-0.06) for 1 year and 0.88 (95% CI 0.64-1.13) for life expectancy; the incremental cost effectiveness ratio (ICER) was CN¥224,921 (US$34,603)/QALY for the short-term, and CN¥13,794 (US$2122)/QALY for the long-term. In short-term analysis, the ICER was CN¥150,087 (US$23,090)/QALY for scleral buckling surgery, and CN¥507,727 (US$78,112)/QALY for vitreous surgery. In the long-term analysis, the ICER was CN¥6280 (US$966)/QALY for scleral buckling, and CN¥30,756 (US$4732)/QALY for vitreous surgery. CONCLUSIONS: For RRD patients, surgery increases QALYs. In a 1-year analysis, surgery is not a cost-effective treatment, however it is cost-effective over the lifetime.

Cost evaluation of surgical and pharmaceutical options in treatment for vitreomacular adhesions and macular holes.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate cost-effectiveness and cost utilities for treatment options for vitreomacular adhesions (VMAs) and full-thickness macular holes (MHs). DESIGN: A Markov model of cost-effectiveness and utility. PARTICIPANTS: There were no participants. METHODS: Outcomes of published clinical trials (index studies) of surgical treatment of VMAs and MHs and a prospective, multicenter clinical trial of pharmaceutical vitreolysis with intravitreal ocriplasmin with saline control were used to generate a model for costs of treatment and visual benefits. All techniques were assumed to result in a 2.5-line visual benefit if anatomy was resolved. Markov analysis, with cost data from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, was used to calculate imputed costs for each primary treatment modality in a facility setting, with surgery performed in a hospital serving as the highest end of the range and nonfacility setting with surgery performed in an ambulatory surgery center serving as the lowest end of the range. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Imputed costs of therapy, cost per line saved, cost per line-year saved, cost per quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). RESULTS: When pars plana vitrectomy (PPV) was selected as the primary procedure, the overall imputed cost ranged from $5802 to $7931. The cost per line was $2368 to $3237, the cost per line-year saved was $163 to $233 and the cost per QALY was $5444 to $7442. If intravitreal injection of ocriplasmin was the primary procedure, the overall imputed cost was $8767 to $10 977. The cost per line ranged from $3549 to $4456, the cost per line-year saved was $245 to $307, and the cost per QALY was between $8159 and $10 244. If intravitreal saline injection was used as a primary procedure, the overall imputed cost was $5828 to $8098. The cost per line was $2374 to $3299, the cost per line-year saved was $164 to $227, and the cost per QALY was $5458 to $7583. CONCLUSIONS: As a primary procedure, PPV was the most cost-effective therapy in this model. The other treatments had similar costs per QALY saved and compare favorably with costs of therapy for other retinal diseases.

Cost of phacovitrectomy versus vitrectomy and sequential phacoemulsification.

PURPOSE: To evaluate and compare the cost of combined pars plana vitrectomy and phacoemulsification/intraocular lens implantation (phacovitrectomy) to a sequential approach to the surgical procedures for patients with an indication for vitrectomy and a visually significant cataract. METHODS: The total cost of both the combined and sequential approaches to surgery were calculated by combining the surgeon, ambulatory surgical center, and anesthesiology fees as reimbursed by Medicare. A univariate sensitivity analysis was also performed to examine the sensitivity of our estimations to changes in surgical duration. RESULTS: Phacovitrectomy afforded a 17% to 20% per-patient cost savings to Medicare (depending on the type of vitrectomy) compared with vitrectomy with sequential phacoemulsification. The conclusion that phacovitrectomy was less expensive than sequential surgery was robust in sensitivity analysis. CONCLUSION: Phacovitrectomy seems to be significantly less costly to Medicare than a sequential approach to surgery for patients with an indication for vitrectomy and a visually significant cataract.

Cost-effectiveness of retinal detachment repair.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate costs and treatment benefits of rhegmatogenous retinal detachment (RD) repair. DESIGN: A Markov model of cost-effectiveness and utility. PARTICIPANTS: There were no participants. METHODS: Published clinical trials (index studies) of pneumatic retinopexy (PR), scleral buckling (SB), pars plana vitrectomy (PPV), and laser prophylaxis were used to quantitate surgical management and visual benefits. Markov analysis, with data from the Center of Medicare and Medicaid Services, was used to calculate the adjusted costs of primary repair by each modality in a hospital-based and ambulatory surgery center (ASC) setting. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Lines of visual acuity (VA) saved, cost of therapy, adjusted cost of therapy, cost per line saved, cost per line-year saved, and cost per quality-adjusted life years (QALY) saved. RESULTS: In the facility, hospital surgery setting, weighted cost for PR ranged from $3726 to $5901 depending on estimated success rate of primary repair. Weighted cost was $6770 for SB, $7940 for PPV, and $1955 for laser prophylaxis. The dollars per line saved ranged from $217 to $1346 depending on the procedure. Dollars per line-year saved ranged from $11 to $67. Dollars per QALY saved ranged from $362 to $2243. In the nonfacility, ASC surgery setting, weighted cost for PR ranged from $1961 to $3565 depending on the success rate of primary repair. The weighted costs for SB, PPV, and laser prophylaxis were $4873, $5793, and $1255, respectively. Dollars per line saved ranged from $139 to $982. The dollars per line-year saved ranged from $7 to $49, and the dollars per QALY saved ranged from $232 to $1637. CONCLUSIONS: Treatment and prevention of RD are extremely cost-effective when compared with other treatment of other retinal diseases regardless of treatment modality. Retinal detachment treatment costs did not vary widely, suggesting that providers can tailor patient treatments solely on the basis of optimizing anticipated results because there were no overriding differences in financial impact.