In-Hospital Cost Comparison for Open Versus Endoscopic Endonasal Approach for Meningioma Resection.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the in-hospital cost implications of an endoscopic expanded endonasal approach (EEEA) for meningioma resection relative to the open transcranial approach. METHODS: All anterior skull base meningioma surgeries performed over a period from January 1st, 2015 to October 31th, 2017 were evaluated. The electronic medical record was reviewed for patient factors, tumor characteristics, and cost variables associated with each hospital stay and univariate analysis was performed using R software. All cost data were converted into August 2021-equivalent dollar amounts using the United States Bureau of Labor Statistics consumer price index. RESULTS: Thirty-five patients met study criteria, including 27 patients undergoing an open transcranial approach and 8 undergoing an EEEA. Average length of stay for patients undergoing an open approach was 9.3 days compared to 5.6 within the EEEA group (P = .126). The average total in-hospital cost of patient undergoing an EEEA was $35417.1 compared to $46406.9 among patients undergoing an open transcranial approach (P = .168). On univariate analysis, the cost of an open transcranial approach relative to the EEEA was $10989.8 (P = .411). CONCLUSIONS: The open transcranial approach remained the dominant surgical approach to anterior skull base meningiomas over our study time period. However, despite limited patient numbers the EEEA was associated with decreased total in-hospital costs.

In-Hospital Costs for Open versus Endoscopic Endonasal Approach for Craniopharyngioma Resection.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the in-hospital cost implications of an expanded endoscopic endonasal approach (EEEA) for craniopharyngioma resection relative to the traditional open transcranial approach. METHODS: All craniopharyngioma surgeries performed at a single institution over a period from January 1st 2001 to October 31th 2017 were evaluated. The electronic medical record was reviewed for patient factors, tumor characteristics, and cost variables associated with each hospital stay and univariate regression analysis was performed using R software. RESULTS: Thirty-six patients met study criteria, including 22 undergoing an open approach and 14 undergoing an EEEA. There was a significantly longer average length of stay among patients undergoing open resection (21.5 vs. 10.6 days, p = 0.024). The average total in-hospital cost of a patient undergoing an EEEA was $58979.3 compared to $89142.3 for an open approach (p = 0.127). On univariate regression analysis, the total in-hospital cost for a patient undergoing an open approach relative to an EEEA was $30163.0 (p = 0.127). The open approach was exclusively performed from study onset until April 2010 (16 patients). From April 2010 to August 2013, 6 open approaches and 5 EEEA were performed. The EEEA has been exclusively performed from August 2013 until the conclusion of our study period (9 patients). CONCLUSIONS: There has been a shift toward surgical resection of craniopharyngioma via an EEEA approach for amenable tumors. Our study demonstrates that the EEEA has become the preferred surgical approach at our institution, and shows that the EEEA is associated with shorter postoperative length of stay and lower total in-hospital cost. Laryngoscope, 133:83-87, 2023.

Economic Evaluation of Dupilumab Versus Endoscopic Sinus Surgery for the Treatment of Chronic Rhinosinusitis With Nasal Polyps.

BACKGROUND: Dupilumab is a novel monoclonal antibody that recently received US Food and Drug Administration approval for the treatment of chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps. Endoscopic sinus surgery (ESS) has been the mainstay of treatment for patients refractory to initial medical therapy. Data comparing the cost-effectiveness of these treatments are scarce. The objective of this study is to compare the cost-effectiveness of dupilumab and ESS treatment for patients with chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps refractory to medical therapy. METHODS: A cohort-style Markov decision tree economic evaluation with 10-year time horizon was performed. The two comparative treatment strategies were dupilumab therapy or ESS followed by postoperative maintenance therapy. Patients with response to treatment continued with either maintenance or dupilumab therapy; patients with no response underwent ESS. The primary outcome measure was incremental cost per quality-adjusted life-year calculated from Sino-Nasal Outcome Test (SNOT-22) scores. Sensitivity analyses were performed including discounting scenarios and a probabilistic sensitivity analysis. RESULTS: The dupilumab strategy cost $195,164 and produced 1.779 quality-adjusted life-years. The ESS strategy cost $20,549 and produced 1.526 quality-adjusted life-years. This implies an incremental cost of $691,691 for dupilumab for every 1-unit increase in quality-adjusted life-year compared with ESS. Probability sensitivity analysis indicated that ESS was more cost-effective than dupilumab in all iterations. CONCLUSIONS: While dupilumab and ESS may demonstrate similar clinical effectiveness, ESS remains the most cost-effective treatment option and should remain the standard of care for patients with chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps refractory to medical therapy.