Cost-utility analysis of the use of prophylactic mesh augmentation compared with primary fascial suture repair in patients at high risk for incisional hernia

BackgroundAlthough hernia repair with mesh can be successful, prophylactic mesh augmentation (PMA) represents a potentially useful preventative technique to mitigate incisional hernia risk in select high-risk patients. The efficacy, cost-benefit, and societal value of such an intervention are not known. The aim of this study was to determine the cost-utility of using prophylactic mesh to augment fascial incisions.MethodsA decision tree model was employed to evaluate the cost-utility of using PMA relative to primary suture closure (PSC) after elective laparotomy. The authors adopted the societal perspective for cost and utility estimates. A systematic review of the literature on PMA was performed. The costs in this study included direct hospital costs and indirect costs to society, and utilities were obtained through a survey of 300 English-speaking members of the general public evaluating 14 health state scenarios relating to ventral hernia.ResultsPSC without mesh demonstrated an expected average cost of $17,182 (average quality-adjusted life-year [QALY] of 21.17) compared with $15,450 (expected QALY was 21.21) for PMA. PSC was associated with an incremental cost-efficacy ratio (ICER) of −$42,444/QALY compared with PMA such that PMA was more effective and less costly. Monte Carlo sensitivity analysis was performed demonstrating more simulations resulting in ICERs for PSC above the willingness-to-pay threshold of $50,000/QALY, supporting the finding that PMA is superior.ConclusionCost-utility analysis of PSC compared to PMA for abdominal laparotomy closure demonstrates PMA to be more effective, less costly, and overall more cost-effective than PSC.