Original ArticleCost-Effectiveness of Endoscopic Versus Microscopic Transsphenoidal Surgery for Pituitary Adenoma
Introduction
The transsphenoidal approach to the pituitary gland was first developed in the early 20th century by Schloffer, Cushing, and Hirsch.1 Utilization expanded rapidly with the introduction of the operating microscope by Jules Hardy in the 1960s, and again with improvements in surgical safety and efficacy established by Wilson, Weiss, Laws, and others in the 1980s.2 Sinonasal morbidity was mitigated by the microscopic endonasal approach described by Griffith and Veerapen in 1987; this was further improved on by advances described by Cooke and Jones in 1994.3 This latter approach has become the most widely implemented in present day pituitary surgery.3 Endoscopy represents one of the latest major advancements in the evolution of pituitary surgical technique.
Various authors have suggested that endoscopic transsphenoidal pituitary surgery (ETPS) may have certain advantages compared with microscopic transsphenoidal pituitary surgery (MTPS).4, 5 For example, endoscopy provides improved visualization that results in improved likelihood of gross total tumor resection, increased endocrine remission rates, improved visual outcomes, and decreased likelihood of tumor recurrence.6, 7, 8, 9, 10 Theodosopoulos et al.11 demonstrated that the extent of gross total resections with ETPS was 66.7% and that only 14.8% of subtotal resections were initially misclassified (via endoscopic visualization) as gross total resection. This contrasted with a misclassification rate of 66% with MTPS.11 The endoscopic endonasal approach has also been associated with fewer surgical complications and shorter hospital stay.6, 7, 8, 9, 10
In the United States alone, >5,000 people undergo pituitary adenoma resection each year, with an associated surgical cost of >$100 million.12 In an era of scrutinized allocation of medical resources, it is important to examine if the clinical advantages of ETPS versus MTPS are also cost-effective.6, 10, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19 A cost-utility analysis (CUA) is usually used to determine cost-effectiveness in health care, with utility referring to quality of life data (in units of quality-adjusted life years [QALYs]). Ideally, any increased cost associated with novel interventions or technologies is offset by improved QALYs to result in a favorable incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). Rarely, an increase in QALYs can be achieved for less cost, a situation referred to as economic dominance. The purpose of this study was to perform a CUA of ETPS versus MTPS for management of pituitary tumors.
Section snippets
Study Population
The Markov model was populated with a synthesis of input values from different sources. Quality of life data and complication probabilities were derived from a nonblinded multicenter exploratory prospective cohort study comparing 235 MTPSs and ETPSs.20 This was supplemented by cost data, where appropriate, from Oosmanally et al.,21 Little et al.,22 and Rudmik et al.23 Eligible patients from the multicenter cohort study were ≥18 years of age with pituitary pathology that had a planned primary or
Results
Data from 235 patients from the nonblinded multicenter exploratory prospective cohort study were analyzed.20 A Markov model was used to determine cost and utility (QALYs) over a 2-year time period for a patient with a pituitary tumor undergoing ETPS versus MTPS. The results are summarized in Table 2.
Discussion
In this study, we derived the ICER of ETPS compared with MTPS using 6-month trial data and conducted robust univariate and multivariate sensitivity analyses. ETPS was shown to be cost-effective based on the commonly accepted willingness-to-pay threshold of $50,000 per QALY.30, 31 This remains true while varying input parameters in multiple sensitivity analyses, reaffirming the stability of the model. From a third-party payer perspective, ETPS imparts greater quality of life at less cost than
Conclusions
This study is among the first to report the comparative cost-effectiveness of ETPS over MTPS for pituitary tumors at 2 years. It also appears reasonable that refinements in ETPS that improve rhinologic morbidity would be expected to further augment the cost savings and QALY benefit of ETPS over MTPS. Although the results appear consistent with similar investigations, given the significant assumptions and limitations, it represents a best-case scenario and should be considered informative and
References (37)
- et al.
Endoscopic modified transseptal transsphenoidal approach for maximal preservation of sinonasal quality of life and olfaction
World Neurosurg
(2016) - et al.
Cushing's first case of transsphenoidal surgery: the launch of the pituitary surgery era
J Neurosurg
(2008) Transphenoidal microsurgery of the normal and pathological pituitary
Clin Neurosurg
(1969)- et al.
The role of outcomes data for assessing the expertise of a pituitary surgeon
Curr Opin Endocrinol Diabetes Obes
(2010) - et al.
History of endoscopic skull base surgery: its evolution and current reality
J Neurosurg
(2007) - et al.
Intraoperative monitoring with pulse Doppler ultrasonography in transsphenoidal surgery: technique application
Neurosurgery
(1996) - et al.
Short-term outcome of endoscopic versus microscopic pituitary adenoma surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis
J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry
(2013) - et al.
Pure endoscopic endonasal approach for pituitary adenomas: early surgical results in 200 patients and comparison with previous microsurgical series
Neurosurgery
(2008) - et al.
Endoscopic endonasal transsphenoidal surgery: surgical results of 228 pituitary adenomas treated in a pituitary center
Pituitary
(2010) - et al.
Endoscopic approach for pituitary surgery improves rhinologic outcomes
Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol
(2009)
Endoscopic pituitary surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis
J Neurosurg
Can endoscopy replace intraoperative MRI for maximizing extent of tumor resection during transsphenoidal surgery for pituitary macroadenomas?
J Neurosurg
Comparison of complications, trends, and costs in endoscopic vs microscopic pituitarysurgery: analysis from a US health claims database
Neurosurgery
Transsphenoidal surgery for pituitary tumors in the United States, 1996–2000: mortality, morbidity, and the effects of hospital and surgeon volume
J Clin Endocrinol Metab
Meta-analysis of endoscopic versus sublabial pituitary surgery
Laryngoscope
Endoscopic versus microscopic trans-sphenoidal pituitary surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Clin Otolaryngol
Endoscopic endonasal compared with microscopic transsphenoidal and open transcranial resection of giant pituitary adenomas
Pituitary
Microscopic versus endoscopic pituitary surgery: a systematic review
Laryngoscope
Cited by (20)
Current and Future Perspectives of Microscopic and Endoscopic Transsphenoidal Surgery for Pituitary Adenomas: A Narrative Review
2023, Archives of Medical ResearchPredictors of Multi‐Vessel Identification, Outcome, and Optimal Surgical Timing for Microvascular Decompression in Hemifacial Spasm
2023, Clinical Neurology and NeurosurgeryProlactinoma
2022, The PituitaryUse of a Surgical Stepdown Protocol for Cost Reduction After Transsphenoidal Pituitary Adenoma Resection: A Case Series
2021, World NeurosurgeryCitation Excerpt :Tumors of the pituitary gland are the second most common intracranial tumor (incidence 4.08:100,000 people), and surgery to remove them is associated with relatively low complication rates.5-7 The nature of these tumors has led to an increased emphasis on developing new methods to lower the cost of health care delivery for both the patient and the hospital for their proper surgical care.5,8-19 Total costs for the management of pituitary tumors in the United States are >$100 million per year, at an average cost of $35,432.04 per patient.9
The Use of Decision Analytic Modeling in the Evaluation of Surgical Innovations: A Scoping Review
2021, Value in HealthCitation Excerpt :The search strategy yielded 1701 unique records, of which 127 met the eligibility criteria after title and abstract review and subsequent full-text review (Fig. 3). Subsequently, 81 (64%) articles were excluded because they studied established surgical procedures instead of surgical innovations, resulting in 46 included studies.19-64 Most included studies originated from the United States (n = 20, 41%), followed by 11 studies from the United Kingdom (22%) and 8 from Canada (16%).
A case series and review of the mononostril endoscopic transnasal transsphenoidal approach: Safe and effective in a low resource setting
2021, Clinical Neurology and NeurosurgeryCitation Excerpt :Since then, the endoscopic TNTS approach has been perfected [7–10], and is now favored by most neurosurgeons [11–13]. The benefits of this approach over a microsurgical one include an expanded field of view with superior illumination, no incision or shaving, decreased postoperative pain, significantly decreased operative time, reduced blood loss and length of stay, all leading to more favorable cost-effectiveness and improved patient outcomes [9,14–17]. However, while there are many benefits to the endoscopic technique, including better pituitary function and visual field preservation, the rate of complications and extent of resection between both methods remain controversial in the literature and may depend more on selecting the proper approach for each particular tumor [11,13,16–18].
Conflict of interest statement: The authors declare that the article content was composed in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.