Cost-Utility Analysis Comparing Surgical and Nonsurgical Interventions in the Treatment of Erectile Dysfunction

Why this matters

This study compares the cost-utility of surgical versus nonsurgical treatments for erectile dysfunction (ED). This work contributes to evidence-based plastic and reconstructive surgery — helping clinicians interpret outcomes, refine technique, and counsel patients with clearer data.

Author

Dr. Orr Shauly

Plastic and reconstructive surgery resident at Emory University (UCLA BS, USC MD) with an h-index of 15 and peer-reviewed work spanning aesthetic surgery, reconstruction, medical devices, and AI in medicine.

Abstract

This study compares the cost-utility of surgical versus nonsurgical treatments for erectile dysfunction (ED). Using a cost-utility analysis, the study evaluates the costs, outcomes, and quality of life associated with both treatment types. Data were derived from Medicare reimbursement rates, hospital charges, and utility scores from Amazon Mechanical Turk. Results showed that surgical interventions for ED were more cost-effective, with a lower lifetime cost and a higher quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gain (10.77 years) compared to nonsurgical treatments. The study concludes that surgery offers better value and outcomes for ED patients, while nonsurgical treatments like PDE5 inhibitors are costlier with less clinical benefit.