Mesh kits for anterior vaginal prolapse are not cost effective

Sunshine Murray, Rashel M. Haverkorn, Yair Lotan, Gary E Lemack

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

14 Scopus citations


Introduction: and hypothesis To analyze the cost-effectiveness of traditional anterior colporrhaphy (AC), hand-cut mesh, and mesh kit anterior vaginal prolapse (AVP) repair. Methods: A decision analysis model was built using mean operating room (OR) times, mesh extrusion rates, and recurrence rates obtained from a meta-analysis along with Medicare reimbursement for surgeon fees and office visits, and hospital costs of supplies, OR time, and room and board. Results: Non-kit mesh repair was $3,380, AC $3,461, and mesh kit $4, 678. One-way sensitivity analyses demonstrated recurrence rate of AC would need to be 28%to be equally cost effective. Mesh kit repair did not reach cost equivalence even at 0 min OR time. Two-way sensitivity analysis comparing mesh extrusion and AC recurrence demonstrated AC is more cost effective if recurrence is <20% or extrusion >25%. Conclusions: Mesh kits for AVP repair are not cost effective, regardless of the OR time saved.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)447-452
Number of pages6
JournalInternational Urogynecology Journal
Issue number4
StatePublished - Apr 2011


  • Cost
  • Cystocele
  • Mesh
  • Prolapse

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Obstetrics and Gynecology
  • Urology


Dive into the research topics of 'Mesh kits for anterior vaginal prolapse are not cost effective'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this