A cost‐utility analysis of artificial urinary sphincter versus AdVance male sling in post prostatectomy stress urinary incontinence: A publicly funded health care perspective
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIMS: To investigate the long-term cost-utility of the artificial urinary sphincter (AUS) compared with Transobturator Retroluminal Sling (AdVance) in the treatment of patients with severe post prostatectomy stress urinary incontinence (PPSUI) from a Canadian provincial health perspective. METHODS: A Markov model with Monte Carlo simulation was developed with a cycle length of 1 year and time horizon up to 10 years to estimate the incremental cost per quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). Patients were assigned to treatment with either AUS or an AdVance sling. Transition probabilities, efficacy data, and utility indices were derived from published literature and expert opinion. Cost data were obtained from provincial health care system and hospital data in 2016-Canadian dollars. The primary outcome was cost per quality-adjusted life year. A standard discount rate of 1.5% was applied annually. Probabilistic and one way deterministic sensitivity analyses were performed. RESULTS: AUS implantation had a 10-year mean total cost of $14 228 (SD ± 3,509) for 7.58 QALYs. AdVance sling had a mean total cost $18 938 (SD ± 12,435) for 6.43 QALYs. The incremental cost savings of AUS over 10-years was -$ 4710 with an added effectiveness of 1.15 QALYs. At a willingness to pay threshold of $50 000, AUS remained the most cost-effective option. A limitation of our analysis is the lack of direct long-term comparisons between both scenarios along with standard success definition. CONCLUSIONS: AUS implantation appears to be more economical treatment strategy for severe PPSUI compared with AdVance sling for a publicly funded health care system over a 5- and 10-year time horizon.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".