Articles

A Comparative Analysis of Surgery and Radiofrequency Therapy for Urinary Incontinence in Iranian Women: Health-Related Quality of Life Improvements and ShortTerm Cost-Utility Analyses

Abstract

Introduction: This study evaluated the health-related quality of life (HRQOL) outcomes and the short-term cost-utility of surgery versus radiofrequency (RF) in treating urinary incontinence (UI) among Iranian women.
Methods: This prospective non-randomized cohort study with economic evaluation assessed the cost-utility of surgery versus RF from the Iranian health system’s perspective. HRQOL was measured using the EuroQol five-dimensional five-level (EQ-5D-5L) and PRAFAB Urinary Incontinence questionnaires, with data collected from 79 women with UI before and three months after the intervention. Costs were calculated based on hospital records. The final outcome was the quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), and the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was calculated.
Results: The study sample had an average age of 51.43 years. Surgical intervention led to a significant improvement in HRQOL, with a mean utility increase from 0.21 to 0.70 and a decrease in PRAFAB incontinence severity scores. RF treatment also improved HRQOL, with utility increasing from 0.50 to 0.86. Moreover, the mean cost of surgery was USD2,200, significantly higher than that of RF, which was USD 622.52. The ICER for surgery compared to RF was USD12,724.93, indicating that surgery is cost-effective.
Conclusion: Surgery and RF both improve HRQOL, with surgery offering a greater QALY gain at a higher cost. Overall, surgery is a cost-effective treatment option compared to RF, supporting its inclusion in treatment guidelines.

1. World Health Organization. World health statistics 2010: World Health Organization; 2010. Available from: https://
www.who.int/publications/i/item/9789241563987
2. Drummond MF, Sculpher MJ, Claxton K, Stoddart GL, Torrance GW. Methods for the economic evaluation of health
care programmes: Oxford university press; 2015.
3. Neumann PJ, Cohen JT, Weinstein MC. Updating costeffectiveness--the curious resilience of the $50,000-per-QALY threshold. N Engl J Med 2014;371(9):796–7. doi:10.1056/ NEJMp1405158
4. Wilkinson T, Sculpher MJ, Claxton K, Revill P, Briggs A, Cairns JA, et al. The International Decision Support Initiative Reference Case for Economic Evaluation: An Aid to Thought. Value Health 2016;19(8):921–8. doi:10.1016/j. jval.2016.04.015
5. Haylen BT, de Ridder D, Freeman RM, Swift SE, Berghmans B, Lee J, et al. An International Urogynecological Association (IUGA)/International Continence Society (ICS) joint report on the terminology for female pelvic floor dysfunction. Neurourol Urodyn 2010;29(1):4–20. doi:10.1002/nau.20798
6. Raz S, Rodriguez LV. Female Urology E-Book: Text with DVD: Elsevier Health Sciences; 2008.
7. DeLancey JO. What’s new in the functional anatomy of pelvic organ prolapse? Curr Opin Obstet Gynecol 2016;28(5):420–9. doi:10.1097/gco.0000000000000312
8. Khandelwal C, Kistler C. Diagnosis of urinary incontinence. Am Fam Physician 2013;87(8):543–50.
9. Rashidi F, Hajian S, Darvish S, Alavi Majd H. Prevalence of urinary incontinence in Iranian women: systematic review and meta-analysis. The Iranian Journal of Obstetrics, Gynecology
and Infertility 2019;21(12):94–102. doi:10.22038/ ijogi.2019.12684
10. Pizzol D, Demurtas J, Celotto S, Maggi S, Smith L, Angiolelli G, et al. Urinary incontinence and quality of life: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Aging Clin Exp Res 2021;33(1):25–35. doi:10.1007/s40520-020-01712-y
11. Siddle N, Versi E. Stress urinary incontinence and the forgotten female hormones. Int Urogynecol J 2022;33(7):1711–6.doi:10.1007/s00192-022-05178-6
12. Coyne KS, Wein A, Nicholson S, Kvasz M, Chen CI, Milsom I. Economic burden of urgency urinary incontinence in the
United States: a systematic review. J Manag Care Pharm 2014;20(2):130–40. doi:10.18553/jmcp.2014.20.2.130
13. Aránguiz-Ramírez J, Olivares-Tirado P, Castells-Oliveres X. Costs associated with Female Urinary Incontinence: an
integrative review of the literature. Obstetrics and Gynecology Research. 2022;5(4):325-33. doi:10.26502/ogr0107
14. Afshari S, Daroudi R, Goudarzi R, Mahboub-Ahari A, Yaseri M, Sari AA, et al. A national survey of Iranian general
population to estimate a value set for the EQ-5D-5L. Qual Life Res 2023;32(7):2079–87. doi:10.1007/s11136-023-03378-1
15. Ghaderi F, Havaei N, Hamedfar M, Berghmans B, Chakeri Z. Validity and reliability of the Persian version of the PRAFAB questionnaire in Iranian women with urinary incontinence. Int Urogynecol J 2023;34(8):1815–21. doi:10.1007/s00192-023-05470-z
16. World Bank. GDP per capita (current LCU) - Iran, Islamic Rep. 2023. World Bank. Accessed August 16, 2023. Available
from: https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.PCAP. CN?locations=IR
17. Brazzelli M, Javanbakht M, Imamura M, Hudson J, Moloney E, Becker F, et al. Surgical treatments for women with stress urinary incontinence: the ESTER systematic review and
economic evaluation. Health Technol Assess 2019;23(14):1– 306. doi:10.3310/hta23140
18. Richardson ML, Sokol ER. A cost-effectiveness analysis of conservative versus surgical management for the initial
treatment of stress urinary incontinence. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2014;211(5):565.e1–6. doi:10.1016/j.ajog.2014.07.006
Files
IssueVol 10 No 1 (2026) QRcode
SectionArticles
Keywords
Urinary incontinence Surgery Radiofrequency Health-related quality of life Cost-utility analysis
Rights and permissions
Creative Commons License This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
How to Cite
1.
Moazzemi Goudarzi L, Darvishi A, Shams L, Maher A, Daroudi R, Darvish bon S. A Comparative Analysis of Surgery and Radiofrequency Therapy for Urinary Incontinence in Iranian Women: Health-Related Quality of Life Improvements and ShortTerm Cost-Utility Analyses. Health Tech Ass Act. 2026;10(1).