Cost‑effectiveness analysis should continually assess competing health care options especially in high volume environments like cataract surgery.

ABSTRACT

Context Cost‑effectiveness analysis should continually assess competing health care options especially in high volume environments like cataract surgery. Aims: To compare the cost effectiveness of phacoemulsification (PE) versus manual small‑incision cataract surgery (MSICS). Settings and Design: Prospective randomized controlled trial. Tertiary care hospital setting. Subjects and Methods: A total of 52 consenting patients with age‑related cataracts, were prospectively recruited, and block randomized to PE or MSICS group. Preoperative and postoperative LogMAR visual acuity (VA), visual function‑14 (VF‑14) score and their quality‑adjusted life years (QALYs) were obtained, and the change in their values calculated. These were divided by the total cost incurred in the surgery to calculate and compare the cost effectiveness and cost utility. Surgery duration was also compared. Statistical Analysis Used Two group comparison with Student’s t‑test. Significance set at P < 0.05; 95% confidence interval (CI) quoted where appropriate. Results: Both the MSICS and PE groups achieved comparative outcomes in terms of change (difference in mean [95% CI]) in LogMAR VA (0.03 [−0.05−0.11]), VF‑14 score (7.92 [−1.03−16.86]) and QALYs (1.14 [−0.89−3.16]). However, with significantly lower costs (INR 3228 [2700–3756]), MSICS was more cost effective, with superior cost utility value. MSICS was also significantly quicker (10.58 min [6.85–14.30]) than PE. Conclusions: MSICS provides comparable visual and QALY improvement, yet takes less time, and is significantly more cost‑effective, compared with PE. Greater push and penetration of MSICS, by the government, is justifiably warranted in our country.