Accounting for repeat intervention costs in the economic comparison of laser interstitial thermal therapy and anterior temporal lobectomy for treatment of refractory temporal lobe epilepsy.

• Failure to account for ATL following LITT provides an underestimate of costs. • LITT costs more if the ratio of subsequent ATLs exceeds the cost reduction of LITT. • Cost per seizure-free patient will be higher in LITT if certain relationships are met. Laser interstitial thermal therapy (LITT) is an alternative to anterior temporal lobectomy (ATL) for the treatment of temporal lobe epilepsy that has been found by some to have a lower procedure cost but is generally regarded as less effective and sometimes results in a subsequent procedure. The goal of this study is to incorporate subsequent procedures into the cost and outcome comparison between ATL and LITT. This single-center, retrospective cohort study includes 85 patients undergoing ATL or LITT for temporal lobe epilepsy during the period September 2015 to December 2022. Of the 40 patients undergoing LITT, 35 % (N = 14) underwent a subsequent ATL. An economic cost model is derived, and difference in means tests are used to compare the costs, outcomes, and other hospitalization measures. Our model predicts that whenever the percentage of LITT patients undergoing subsequent ATL (35% in our sample) exceeds the percentage by which the LITT procedure alone is less costly than ATL (7.2% using total patient charges), LITT will have higher average patient cost than ATL, and this is indeed the case in our sample. After accounting for subsequent surgeries, the average patient charge in the LITT sample ($103,700) was significantly higher than for the ATL sample ($88,548). A second statistical comparison derived from our model adjusts for the difference in effectiveness by calculating the cost per seizure-free patient outcome, which is $108,226 for ATL, $304,052 for LITT only, and $196,484 for LITT after accounting for the subsequent ATL surgeries. After accounting for the costs of subsequent procedures, we found in our cohort that LITT is not only less effective but also results in higher average costs per patient than ATL as a first course of treatment. While cost and effectiveness rates will vary across centers, we also provide a model for calculating cost effectiveness based on individual center data. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]