Economic Evaluation Study (Cheer Compliant) Laser Prostatectomy for Benign Prostatic Hyperplasia: Outcomes and Cost-effectiveness. Issue 5 (February 2016)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Hsu, Yu-Chao; Lin, Yu-Hsiang; Chou, Chih-Yuan; Hou, Chen-Pang; Chen, Chien-Lun; Chang, Phei-Lang; Tsui, Ke-Hung
• Other Names: Alves. Marco section editor.
• Is Part Of: Medicine. Volume 95:Issue 5(2016)
• Publication Date: 2016-02
• Subjects: Medicine -- Periodicals; Medicine -- Periodicals; Médecine -- Périodiques; Geneeskunde; Medicine; Periodicals; Periodicals; 610.5
• DOI: 10.1097/MD.0000000000002644
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 0025-7974

Abstract

Abstract : Abstract: To determine which surgical treatment for lower urinary tract symptoms, which is suggestive of benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH), is more cost-effective and yields a better patient's preference. Treatment outcome, cost, and perioperative complications to assess the treatment effectiveness of using laser prostatectomy as a treatment for BPH were investigated in this study. This retrospective study included 100 patients who underwent transurethral resection of prostate (TUR-P) and another 100 patients who received high-powered 120 W (GreenLight HPS) laser prostatectomy between 2005 and 2011. International Prostate Symptom Score and uroflow parameters were collected before the surgery and the uroflow and postvoiding residual volumes were evaluated before treatment and at 3, 6, 12, and 24 months after treatment. The results of 100 treatments after HPS laser prostatectomy were compared with the results of 100 patients who received TUR-P from the same surgeon. Complication rates and admission costs were analyzed. From 2005 to 2011, 200 consecutive patients underwent endoscopic surgery. Study participants were men with BPH with mean age of 71.3 years old. The peak flow rate went from 8.47 to 15.83 mL/s for 3 months after laser prostatectomy. Laser therapy groups showed better improvement in symptom score, shortened length of stay, and quality of life score when compared with those of TUR-P procedures. The estimated cost for laser prostatectomy was high when compared with cost of any other TUR-P procedural option at Chang Gung Hospital ( P = 0.001). All admission charges were similar except for the cost of the laser equipment and accessories (mainly the laser fiber) ( P = 0.001). Due to this cost of equipment, it increased the total admission charges for the laser group and therefore made the cost for the laser group higher than that of the TUR-P group. Perioperative complications, such as the need for checking for bleeding, urinary retention rate or urosepsis rate within 30 days after the surgery, held no significant differences between both groups. Compared with alternative treatment options, laser prostatectomy of the prostate is clinically effective but yields a high cost of treatment for symptomatic BPH.