Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Economic Evaluation of Infertility Treatment for Tubal Disease

  • Published:
Journal of Assisted Reproduction and Genetics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose : The number of published studies comparing cost-effectiveness of tubal surgery and IVF treatment is limited, in part because of the difficulties of conducting randomized trials, given that IVF is now a clinically accepted treatment and the decision to offer surgery or IVF is often dictated by the severity of the tubal disease and by the availability of the methods. The aim of this study was to compare the costs of our policy of offering tubal surgery to patients with mild or moderate tubal disease with the cost of offering IVF to these and severe tubal disease.

Methods : In this retrospective cohort study patients with tubal pathology as the sole reason for their infertility were included: 61 patients in the tubal surgery group and 464 patients in the IVF group. The delivery rates and costs per delivery were compared.

Results : Delivery rates were 28% in the tubal surgery group within 2 years of follow-up and 52% in the IVF group that involved up to three cycles of treatment. This economic evaluation demonstrated only small differences in the average cost when considering the cost per delivery.

Conclusions : With a policy involving strict selection of patients, tubal surgery will continue to have a role in the treatment of infertility.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Drummond M, Stoddart G, Labelle R, Cushman R: Health Economics: An introduction for clinicians. Ann Intern Med 1987;107:88-92

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Detsky AS, Naglie IG: A clinician's guide to cost-effectiveness analysis. Ann Intern Med 1990;113:147-154

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Drummond M, Stoddart G, Torrance G: Methods for the Economic Evaluation of Health Care Programmes. Oxford, UK, Oxford Medical Publications, 1987

    Google Scholar 

  4. Van Voorhis BJ, Stowall DW, Allen BD, Syrop CH: Cost-effective treatment of the infertile couple. Fertil Steril 1998;70:995-1005

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Holst N, Maltau JM, Forsdahl F, Hansen LJ: Handling of tubal infertility after introduction of in vitro fertilization: Changes and consequences. Fertil Steril 1991;55:140-143

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Haan G, Van Steen R: Cost in relation to effects of in-vitro fertilization. Hum Reprod 1992;7:982-986

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Daya S: Comparison of IVF with conventional treatment for tubal infertility. Spécial congrès Vichy–IFFS 1995, pp. 206-214

  8. Mage G, Pouly JL, de Joliniere JB, Chabrand S, Riouallon A, Bruhat MA: A preoperative classification to predict the intrauterine and ectopic pregnancy rates after distal tubal microsurgery. Fertil Steril 1986;46:807-810

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Eisenberg JM: A guide to the economic analysis of clinical practices. JAMA 1989;262:2879-2886

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Granberg M, Wikland M, Hamberger L: Financing of IVF/ET in the Nordic countries. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 1998;77:63-67

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Eddy D: Applying cost-effectiveness analysis. JAMA 1992;268:2575-2582

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Ubel PA, De Kay ML, Baron J, Asch DA: Cost-effectiveness analysis in a setting of budget constraints, is it equitable? N Engl J Med 1996;334:1174-1177

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Penzias A, DeCherney AH: Is there ever a role for tubal surgery? Am J Obstet Gynecol 1996;174:1218-1223

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Van Voorhis BJ, Stowall DW, Sparks AET, Syrop CH, Allen BD, Chapler FK: Cost-effectiveness of infertility treatments: A cohort study. Fertil Steril 1997;67:830-836

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Philips Z, Barraza-llorens M, Posnett J: Evaluation of the relative cost-effectiveness of treatments for infertility in the UK. Hum Reprod 2000;15:95-106

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Van Voorhis BJ, Stowall DW, Syrop CH: Cost-effective treatment for the couple with infertility. Clin Obstet Gynecol 2000;43:958-973

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Copperman AB, Mukherjee T, Shaer J, Patel D, Sandler B, Grunfeld L, Bustillo M: A cost analysis of in vitro fertilization versus tubal surgery within an institution under two payment systems. J Womans Health 1996;5:335-341

    Google Scholar 

  18. Csemiczky G, Wramsby H, Landgren BM: High tubal damage is associated with low pregnancy rate in women undergoing in vitro fertilization treatment. Hum Reprod 1996;11:2438-2440

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Strandell A, Lindhard A, Waldenström U, Thorburn J, Jansson PO, Hamberger L: Hydrosalpinx and IVF outcome: A prospective, randomized multicentre trial in Scandinavia on salpingectomy prior to IVF. Hum Reprod 1999;14:2762-2769

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Hammarberg K., Astbury J., Baker H.W.G: Women's experience of IVF: A follow-up study. Hum Reprod. 2001;16:374-383

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Bergh C, Borg G, Friden B, Olivius C: Why do couples with infertility interrupt treatment? XIV Nordic IVF Meeting, Lillehammar, Norway, Jan2002 (Abstract Book NW4 2002)

  22. Ehnskog A, Henriksson M, Unander M, Brannstrom M: Prospective study of the clinical and laboratory parameters of patients in whom ovarian hypestimulation syndrome developed during controlled ovarian hyperstimulation for in vitro fertilization. Fertil Steril 1999;71:808-814

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Vilska S, Tiitinen A, Hydén-Granskog C, Hovatta O: Elective transfer of one embryo results in an acceptable pregnancy rate and eliminates the risk for multiple birth. Hum Reprod 1999;14:2392-2395

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Strandell A, Bergh C, Lundin K: Selection of patients suitable for one-embryo transfer may reduce the rate of multiple births by half without impairment of overall birth rates. Hum Reprod 2000;15:2520-2525

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Sahlgrenska University Hospital, Gothenburg, Sweden

    M. Granberg, A. Strandell, J. Thorburn & M. Wikland

  2. Departments of Obstetrics and Gynecology and Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada

    S. Daya

Authors
  1. M. Granberg
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. A. Strandell
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. J. Thorburn
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. S. Daya
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. M. Wikland
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Granberg, M., Strandell, A., Thorburn, J. et al. Economic Evaluation of Infertility Treatment for Tubal Disease. J Assist Reprod Genet 20, 301–308 (2003). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1024853322988

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1024853322988

Search

Navigation