Cost-effectiveness of routine type and screens in select urological surgeries.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of obtaining a preoperative type and screen (T/S) for common urologic procedures. METHODS: A decision tree model was constructed to track surgical patients undergoing two preoperative blood ordering strategies as follows: obtaining a preoperative T/S versus not doing so. The model was applied to the National (Nationwide) Inpatient Sample (NIS) data, from January 1, 2006 to September 30, 2015. Cost estimates for the model were created from combined patient-level data with published costs of a T/S, type and crossmatch (T/C), a unit of pRBC, and one unit of emergency-release transfusion (ERT). The primary outcome was the incremental cost per ERT prevented, expressed as an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) between the two preoperative blood ordering strategies. A cost-effectiveness analysis determined the ICER of obtaining preoperative T/S to prevent an emergency-release transfusion (ERT), with a willingness-to-pay threshold of $1,500.00. RESULTS: A total of 4,113,144 surgical admissions from 2006 to 2015 were reviewed. The overall transfusion rate was 10.54% (95% CI, 10.17-10.91) for all procedures. The ICER of preoperative T/S was $1500.00 per ERT prevented. One-way sensitivity analysis demonstrated that the risk of transfusion should exceed 4.12% to justify preoperative T/S. CONCLUSION: Routine preoperative T/S for radical prostatectomy (rate = 3.88%) and penile implants (rate = .91%) does not represent a cost-effective practice for these surgeries. It is important for urologists to review their institution T/S policy to reduce inefficiencies within the preoperative setting.

Initial experience using a novel nerve stimulator for the management of pudendal neuralgia.

AIMS: In patients with pudendal neuralgia, prior studies have shown efficacy in chronic stimulation with Interstim® (Medtronic, Inc.). This feasibility study reports on the initial experience of using a wireless system to power an implanted lead at the pudendal nerve, StimWave®, to treat pudendal neuralgia. METHODS: Retrospective chart review identified patients with a lead placed at the pudendal nerve for neuralgia and powered wirelessly. Clinical outcomes were assessed at Postoperative visits and phone calls. Administered non-validated follow-up questionnaire evaluated the Global Response Assessment, percentage of pain improvement, satisfaction with device, and initial and current settings of the device (h/day of stimulation). RESULTS: Thirteen patients had the StimWave® lead placed at the pudendal nerve, 12 (92%) female and 1 (7.6%) male. Mean age was 50 years (range: 20-58). Failed prior therapies include medical therapy (100%), pelvic floor physical therapy (92%), pudendal nerve blocks (85%), pelvic floor muscle trigger point injections (69%), neuromodulation (30.7%), or surgeries for urogenital pain (23.1%). After the trial period, 10/13 (76.9%) had >50% improvement in pain with 6/13 (46.1%) reporting 100% pain improvement. Nine underwent permanent lead placement. At last postoperative visit (range, 6-83 days), 5/9 patients reported >50% pain improvement. Seven patients reached for phone calls (22-759 days) reported symptoms to be "markedly improved" (n = 2), "moderately improved" (n = 4), or "slightly improved" (n = 1). At follow up, complications included lead migration (n = 2), broken wire (n = 1), or nonfunctioning antenna (n = 2). CONCLUSION: Complex patients with pudendal neuralgia may benefit from pudendal nerve stimulation via StimWave®.