Economic costs of cataract surgery using a rigid and a foldable intraocular lens*

Summary Optimal delivery of healthcare requires consideration of various costs. A foldable intraocular lens (IOL) is more expensive than an equivalent rigid IOL. However, surgical and post‐operative costs may make a foldable IOL economically preferable. We compared the economic costs of cataract surgery plus implantation of a foldable IOL with implantation of a rigid IOL. Prospective audit of the clinical records of 82 pseudophakes; 39 implanted with a rigid IOL and 43 implanted with a foldable IOL by one surgeon. Average follow‐up periods were 25±7 months and 23±5 months respectively. There was no difference between the two groups for the follow‐up period ( P =0.55), number of post‐operative complications ( P =0.25) or cost of post‐operative visits ( P =0.83). The cost of single‐use theatre equipment was greater for the rigid‐IOL group ( P =0.0001). The total identified cost per patient was greater for the foldable‐IOL group ( P =0.0001). Despite possible technical advantages, implantation of the foldable IOL did not provide an economic benefit, either in the initial cost or in the costs of post‐operative care. Over the 2‐year period, implanting with the rigid IOL cost, on average, £57 less per patient. Despite this economic difference, a cost‐benefit analysis is required, since other factors may be more important.