Economic Evaluation Study (Cheer Compliant) Laser Prostatectomy for Benign Prostatic Hyperplasia: Outcomes and Cost-effectiveness

Bipolar Needlescopic Enucleation Versus Bipolar Vapoenucleation of the prostate: A prospective single Centre Randomized Study

BACKGROUND

Endoscopic enucleation of the prostate (EEP) is a safe and effective interventional option for the management of variable-sized adenomas.

PURPOSE

To point out the safety and efficacy of needlescopic enucleation of the prostate (BNEP) in comparison with vapoenucleation of the prostate (BVEP).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This is a prospective randomized trial. In all, 214 patients with variable size adenoma were randomly assigned (1:1) to either: the BNEP group (108 patients underwent Bipolar-EEP (BEEP) using a needle electrode, or a vapoenucleation one (BVEP) group (106 patients underwent BEEP using vaporization electrodes). Intra & intergroup objective and subjective outcomes were compared at different time points for 1 year. Also, all other procedure's related events and mishaps were registered and compared.

RESULTS

The median (interquartile range (IQR)) operative time, resected tissue weight, postoperative irrigation time, and Hb drop were: 60 (50-88) Vs 80 (60 - 98) minutes, 67 (56 - 86) Vs 46 (40- 61) grams, 10 (8 - 12) Vs 12 (10 -18) hours, and 1 (0.6 - 1.3) Vs 1.2 (0.88 - 1.9) g/dl, for BNEP and BVEP groups, respectively, (P<0.05). Both subjective and objective parameters were analogously improved in the two groups (P> 0.5). However, the post-operative irritative symptoms and urinary infections were lower in BNEP group (P<0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

Our results revealed that although both BNEP and BVEP are effective and safe in the management of benign prostatic obstruction, BNEP is superior in terms of less operative time, intra-operative blood loss, irrigation time, irritative symptoms and urinary infections.

A Cost-Benefit Analysis of Bipolar TURP for the Treatment of Bladder Outflow Obstruction

Transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP) is the gold standard surgical technique for endoscopic treatment of benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH). Introduced in 2001, the bipolar energy appeared to be a valid alternative to the classical monopolar one with reduced risk of complication related to the use of saline irrigation and to the increased hemostatic efficacy. More recently, raising attention has been given to laser enucleation and vaporization techniques, which appear to achieve further advantages in terms of reduced hospital stay and complications compared to the resection ones. Few studies have investigated the cost/benefit ratio related to these techniques. The aim of this systematic review was to analyze the cost/benefit ratio of bipolar TURP (B-TURP) compared with other endoscopic procedures.

Photovaporization of the prostate with GreenLight™ laser 180 W XPS versus transurethral resection of the prostate with monopolar energy for the treatment of benign prostatic enlargement: a cost-utility analysis from a healthcare perspective

PURPOSE

To assess the cost-utility of the photovaporization of the prostate (PVP) with GreenLight™ laser 180 W XPS compared to transurethral resection of the prostate with monopolar energy (M-TURP) for lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS) due to benign prostatic enlargement (BPE) from a healthcare perspective in Colombia.

METHODS

We designed a Markov model to compare four health states following treatment with either PVP or M-TURP to estimate expected costs and outcomes. We used the results of the only randomized clinical trial published to date comparing PVP versus M-TURP to estimate surgical outcomes, complications, re-operation and re-intervention rates. Time horizon was defined at 2 years with four cycles of 6 months each. Resource-use estimation involved a random selection of clinical records from a local institution and cost list from public healthcare system. Costs were obtained in Colombian pesos and converted to US dollars. Threshold was defined at three-times the Colombian gross domestic product (GDP) per capita. Quality-adjusted-life-years (QALYs) were used based on the utilities of the available literature. Uncertainty was analyzed with deterministic and probabilistic models using a Monte Carlo simulation.

RESULTS

Patients who underwent PVP gained 1.81 QALYs compared to 1.59 with M-TURP. Costs were US$6797.98 and US$7777.59 for M-TURP and PVP, respectively. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was US$4452.81 per QALY, favoring PVP as a cost-effective alternative in our context.

CONCLUSIONS

In Colombia, with current prices, PVP is cost-effective when compared to M-TURP for LUTS due to BPE for a 2-year time horizon.

Costs of Managing Benign Prostatic Hyperplasia in the Office and Operating Room

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

To review the costs associated with benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) management. Specifically, to compare the costs of medical therapy, office-based procedures, and surgical management from a payer perspective.

RECENT FINDINGS

The American Urological Association released updated guidelines in 2018 for the surgical management of BPH. Over recent years, analyses investigating the cost-effectiveness of the modalities included in these guidelines have been completed. These show relatively newer, minimally-invasive office-based therapies can provide cost-effective alternatives to medical therapy. Likewise, surgical therapies provide a cost-effective means of BPH management, if performed well with low complication rates. However, comparisons of these studies are limited by the biases they contain. Minimally-invasive office-based therapies and well performed surgical therapies for BPH can achieve cost equivalence to combination medical therapy within a few years. Factors such as age, gland size, patient compliance, and surgeon skill should be considered when personalizing treatment recommendations for each patient.