Abstract
The transinguinal preperitoneal (TIPP) technique using a soft mesh with a memory ring was developed recently for inguinal hernia repair. To compare TIPP with the Lichtenstein method, a randomised trial was conducted (ISRCTN93798494). The aim of this study was to perform an economic evaluation of the TIPP modality compared to the Lichtenstein modality from both a hospital and societal perspective alongside the clinical trial. The TULIP study was a double-blind randomised clinical trial comparing two techniques for inguinal hernia repair (TIPP and Lichtenstein). Correct generation of the allocation sequence, allocation concealment, blinding, and follow-up were used/applied according to the recommendations of the Cochrane Handbook. Next to the cost drivers, the short-form-36 health survey (SF-36) data from the TULIP trial was used to determine utility. The SF-36 data from the TULIP trial were revised using the SF-6D algorithm according to Brazier. Two scenarios-a hospital and a societal perspective-were presented. If the analyses showed no difference in effects (on the SF-6D) the cost effectiveness decision rule to cost minimisation was altered. No significant difference in SF-6D utility between both modalities was found (mean difference: 0.888, 95 % CI -1.02 to 1.23); consequently, the economic decision rule became cost minimisation. For the hospital perspective no significant differences in costs were found (mean difference: <euro>-13, 95 % CI <euro>-130 to <euro>104). However, when including productivity gains in the analysis, significant differences (P = 0.037) in costs favouring the TIPP modality (mean saving: <euro>1,472, 95 % CI <euro>463-<euro>2,714) were found. The results show that TIPP is a cost-saving inguinal hernia repair technique compared to the Lichtenstein modality against equal effectiveness expressed as quality adjusted life week at 1 year given a societal perspective. In the trial, TIPP patients showed on average a quicker recovery of 6.5 days compared to Lichtenstein patients.
