Tags

Type your tag names separated by a space and hit enter

Cost aspects of transurethral resection of the prostate, contact laser prostatectomy, and electrovaporization.
Urology. 2004 May; 63(5):882-6.U

Abstract

OBJECTIVES

To compare the costs of transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP), contact laser prostatectomy (CLP), and electrovaporization in men with lower urinary tract symptoms associated with benign prostatic hyperplasia.

METHODS

We conducted a randomized controlled trial that included men with lower urinary tract symptoms who met the criteria of the International Scientific Committee on benign prostatic hyperplasia. Subjective changes were quantified using questionnaires validated by the American Urological Association. The maximal free urinary flow rate was estimated. Morbidity and mortality were registered. These parameters were measured at regular intervals for up to 1 year and once during long-term follow-up. A cost analysis together with a sensitivity analysis was performed on the basis of a follow-up of 12 months.

RESULTS

A total of 50 men were randomized to TURP, 45 to laser treatment, and 46 to electrovaporization. The subjective and objective changes were very similar during the 12 months of follow-up. The costs were highest for CLP (1885 dollars), followed by TURP (1707 dollars), and were lowest for electrovaporization (1489 dollars). However, the length of hospital stay decreased during the trial more for CLP and electrovaporization than for TURP. Recalculations demonstrated almost equal costs for CLP and TURP (1697 dollars and 1643 dollars, respectively) and the lowest costs for electrovaporization (1386 dollars).

CONCLUSIONS

Electrovaporization has a better cost-effectiveness than CLP and TURP in patients with lower urinary tract symptoms associated with benign prostatic hyperplasia. CLP and TURP showed very similar cost-effectiveness ratios.

Links

Publisher Full Text

Authors+Show Affiliations

van Melick HH
Department of Urology, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
van Venrooij GE
No affiliation info available
van Swol CF
No affiliation info available
Boon TA
No affiliation info available

MeSH

Cost-Benefit AnalysisElectrosurgeryHumansLaser TherapyMaleProstatectomyProstatic HyperplasiaSensitivity and SpecificityTransurethral Resection of Prostate

Pub Type(s)

Clinical Trial
Journal Article
Randomized Controlled Trial

Language

eng

PubMed ID

15134971

Citation

van Melick, Harm H E., et al. "Cost Aspects of Transurethral Resection of the Prostate, Contact Laser Prostatectomy, and Electrovaporization." Urology, vol. 63, no. 5, 2004, pp. 882-6.
van Melick HH, van Venrooij GE, van Swol CF, et al. Cost aspects of transurethral resection of the prostate, contact laser prostatectomy, and electrovaporization. Urology. 2004;63(5):882-6.
van Melick, H. H., van Venrooij, G. E., van Swol, C. F., & Boon, T. A. (2004). Cost aspects of transurethral resection of the prostate, contact laser prostatectomy, and electrovaporization. Urology, 63(5), 882-6.
van Melick HH, et al. Cost Aspects of Transurethral Resection of the Prostate, Contact Laser Prostatectomy, and Electrovaporization. Urology. 2004;63(5):882-6. PubMed PMID: 15134971.
* Article titles in AMA citation format should be in sentence-case
TY - JOUR T1 - Cost aspects of transurethral resection of the prostate, contact laser prostatectomy, and electrovaporization. AU - van Melick,Harm H E, AU - van Venrooij,Ger E P M, AU - van Swol,Christiaan F P, AU - Boon,Tom A, PY - 2003/09/02/received PY - 2003/12/05/accepted PY - 2004/5/12/pubmed PY - 2004/10/23/medline PY - 2004/5/12/entrez SP - 882 EP - 6 JF - Urology JO - Urology VL - 63 IS - 5 N2 - OBJECTIVES: To compare the costs of transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP), contact laser prostatectomy (CLP), and electrovaporization in men with lower urinary tract symptoms associated with benign prostatic hyperplasia. METHODS: We conducted a randomized controlled trial that included men with lower urinary tract symptoms who met the criteria of the International Scientific Committee on benign prostatic hyperplasia. Subjective changes were quantified using questionnaires validated by the American Urological Association. The maximal free urinary flow rate was estimated. Morbidity and mortality were registered. These parameters were measured at regular intervals for up to 1 year and once during long-term follow-up. A cost analysis together with a sensitivity analysis was performed on the basis of a follow-up of 12 months. RESULTS: A total of 50 men were randomized to TURP, 45 to laser treatment, and 46 to electrovaporization. The subjective and objective changes were very similar during the 12 months of follow-up. The costs were highest for CLP (1885 dollars), followed by TURP (1707 dollars), and were lowest for electrovaporization (1489 dollars). However, the length of hospital stay decreased during the trial more for CLP and electrovaporization than for TURP. Recalculations demonstrated almost equal costs for CLP and TURP (1697 dollars and 1643 dollars, respectively) and the lowest costs for electrovaporization (1386 dollars). CONCLUSIONS: Electrovaporization has a better cost-effectiveness than CLP and TURP in patients with lower urinary tract symptoms associated with benign prostatic hyperplasia. CLP and TURP showed very similar cost-effectiveness ratios. SN - 1527-9995 UR - https://www.unboundmedicine.com/medline/citation/15134971/Cost_aspects_of_transurethral_resection_of_the_prostate_contact_laser_prostatectomy_and_electrovaporization_ L2 - https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0090429503013554 DB - PRIME DP - Unbound Medicine ER -
Grapherence [↓2]

Related Citations

More