Effectiveness was measured in quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), with a willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold of $100,000 per QALY gained or lost. Cost estimates, probabilities, and utility values were sourced from existing medical literature.
The analysis calculated the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) between salpingectomy and vasectomy and included a probabilistic sensitivity assessment with 10,000 simulations. A cost-effectiveness acceptability curve was then generated for WTP thresholds ranging from $0 to $200,000. Secondary outcomes included the number of unintended pregnancies as well as ovarian cancer cases and deaths.
The study revealed the following findings:
- Salpingectomy had an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of $143,769 per QALY gained compared with vasectomy, exceeding the standard $100,000 threshold.
- Vasectomy was more cost-effective in 81.5% of simulations at a willingness-to-pay (WTP) level of $100,000.
- The cost-effectiveness advantage of vasectomy dropped to 14.7% when the WTP threshold increased to $200,000, indicating salpingectomy may be more attractive when higher costs are acceptable.
- Salpingectomy was linked to 1,215 fewer unintended pregnancies annually compared with vasectomy.
- It was also associated with 6,085 fewer ovarian cancer cases each year.
- The procedure further resulted in 4,921 fewer ovarian cancer deaths, highlighting its broader public health benefits.
The authors concluded that, at a WTP threshold of $100,000, salpingectomy does not meet standard benchmarks for cost-effectiveness relative to vasectomy, despite its ability to lower both unintended pregnancy rates and the societal burden of ovarian cancer. They emphasized the importance of shared decision-making between healthcare providers and couples considering permanent contraception. According to the research team, counseling should incorporate not only the financial and contraceptive aspects of each procedure but also the long-term health benefits—particularly the reduction in ovarian cancer risk—associated with salpingectomy.
"The analysis highlights the nuanced balance between economic considerations and broader health outcomes when choosing a permanent contraceptive method, offering valuable insights for clinicians and couples making these critical decisions," the authors wrote.
Reference:
Pearson, Amy BS; Shvartsman, Katerina MD; Zeng, Wu MD, PhD; Brown, Jill MD, MPH. Cost Effectiveness of Salpingectomy Compared With Vasectomy for Permanent Contraception. Obstetrics & Gynecology ():10.1097/AOG.0000000000006042, August 28, 2025. | DOI: 10.1097/AOG.0000000000006042
Disclaimer: This website is primarily for healthcare professionals. The content here does not replace medical advice and should not be used as medical, diagnostic, endorsement, treatment, or prescription advice. Medical science evolves rapidly, and we strive to keep our information current. If you find any discrepancies, please contact us at corrections@medicaldialogues.in. Read our Correction Policy here. Nothing here should be used as a substitute for medical advice, diagnosis, or treatment. We do not endorse any healthcare advice that contradicts a physician's guidance. Use of this site is subject to our Terms of Use, Privacy Policy, and Advertisement Policy. For more details, read our Full Disclaimer here.
NOTE: Join us in combating medical misinformation. If you encounter a questionable health, medical, or medical education claim, email us at factcheck@medicaldialogues.in for evaluation.