Laparoscopic <i>v</i> Open Donor Nephrectomy: A Cost-Utility Analysis of the Initial Experience at a Tertiary-Care Center

Pace, Kenneth T.; Dyer, Sarah; Phan, Véronique; Poulin, Éric C.; Schlachta, Christopher M.; Mamazza, Joseph; Stewart, Robert T.; Honey, R. John D'a.

doi:10.1089/089277902760367467

Cited by 27 publications

(15 citation statements)

References 42 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…[3,[19][20][21][22][23][24][25] The objective of the traditional TTO is to establish the duration of time in perfect health that the respondent regards as equivalent to time spent in the impaired health state (i.e. the amount of time the respondent is willing to give up to avoid the impaired health state).…”

Section: Time Trade-off or Standard Gamble Techniquesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Herpes zoster (TTO) [19] Cancer screening and diagnoses (TTO and SG) [3,20,21] Cancer treatment (TTO and SG) [22,23] Cardiac rehabilitation (TTO) [24] Kidney donation (TTO) [25] Adapted techniques for temporary health states Pertussis [26] Herpes zoster [19] Otitis media, pneumonia, meningitis [1,27,28] Newborn screening [29] Waiting trade-off Utility value from TTO of waiting time for an 'ideal' test compared with immediate actual test…”

Section: Time Trade-off or Standard Gamble Techniquesmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Methods for Measuring Temporary Health States for Cost-Utility Analyses

et al. 2009

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A variety of methods are available to measure preferences for temporary health states for cost-utility analyses. The objectives of this review were to summarize the available temporary health-state valuation methods, identify advantages and disadvantages of each, and identify areas for future research. We describe the key aspects of each method and summarize advantages and disadvantages of each method in terms of consistency with QALY theory, relevance to temporary health-state-specific domains, ease of use, time preference, and performance in validation studies. Two broad categories of methods were identified: traditional and adapted. Traditional methods were health status instruments, time trade-off (TTO), and the standard gamble (SG). Methods adapted specifically for temporary health-state valuation were TTO with specified duration of the health state, TTO with a lifespan modification, waiting trade-off, chained approaches for TTO and SG, and sleep trade-off. Advantages and disadvantages vary by method and no 'gold standard' method emerged. Selection of a method to value temporary health states will depend on the relative importance of the following considerations: ability to accurately capture the unique characteristics of the temporary health state, level of respondent burden and cognition, theoretical consistency of elicited preference values with the overall purpose of the study, and resources available for study development and data collection. Further research should focus on evaluating validity, reliability and feasibility of temporary health-state valuation methods.

show abstract

Section: Time Trade-off or Standard Gamble Techniquesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Time Trade-off or Standard Gamble Techniquesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Methods for Measuring Temporary Health States for Cost-Utility Analyses

et al. 2009

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…11 Furthermore, the overall societal cost of LapDN is lower, and the recipient's quality of life scores are higher. 12 The procedure is technically demanding, however, and there is potential for damage to the renal parenchyma, vessels, and ureter during dissection. It takes longer than open nephrectomy and exposes the allograft to a longer period of warm ischemia.…”

Section: Minimal Access Donor Nephrectomymentioning

confidence: 99%

Kidney Transplantation Surgery

Barlow¹,

Brook²,

Nicholson³

2010

Comprehensive Clinical Nephrology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Alternatively, it was €16,000 (US$19,000) per QALY gained from a societal perspective (i.e., offsetting care costs with productivity gains). An earlier study (2) showed higher QALY gains and therefore lower cost-effectiveness ratios, but Kok's study should probably be considered less prone to bias because it is based on a well-conducted randomized controlled trial, rather than a decision model. So does this represent good value?…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Laparoscopic Donor Nephrectomy: Is It Cost Effective? Perspective From Health Economists

Wonderling

Fenu²

2007

Transplantation

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A s with all health services, practices associated with kidney transplantation ought to be cost-effective, providing value for money as well as clinical efficacy. No health service has enough resources to provide every clinically effective intervention, and therefore whenever we introduce a new service it must be unintentionally displacing another effective practice. If the interventions provided have a low health gain relative to the money spent, then the health gain we will achieve will be less than the health gain we would have achieved by implementing the displaced activity; overall, patients will be worse off. The implication is that for new (and existing) procedures, we need to measure rigorously resource costs as well as health benefits. In this issue of Transplantation, Kok and colleagues conducted such an analysis alongside a randomized controlled trial of laparoscopic donor nephrectomy (LDN) versus mini-incision open donor nephrectomy (ODN) (1).Kidney transplantation both extends life and improves quality of life. To compare the value for money of different interventions requires a measure of health that incorporates both, such as the quality-adjusted life-year (QALY), where 1 QALY represents a health gain equivalent to extending life by 1 year at full quality of life (or by 2 years at 50% quality of life, etc.). Kok and colleagues recorded an increase of 0.03 QALYs per patient

show abstract

Laparoscopic v Open Donor Nephrectomy: A Cost-Utility Analysis of the Initial Experience at a Tertiary-Care Center

Abstract: LapDN offers improved QOL at marginally higher cost. A societal ICER of $7,471.11/QALY compares favorably to many accepted health-care interventions. By potentially increasing organ donor rates, LapDN may be cost saving by decreasing the number of patients on dialysis.

Cited by 27 publications

References 42 publications

Methods for Measuring Temporary Health States for Cost-Utility Analyses

Methods for Measuring Temporary Health States for Cost-Utility Analyses

Kidney Transplantation Surgery

Laparoscopic Donor Nephrectomy: Is It Cost Effective? Perspective From Health Economists

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About