OBJECTIVES: To assess the functional outcome and cumulative health-resource-related cost of holmium laser enucleation of the prostate (HoLEP) in comparison with transvesical open prostatectomy (TVOP) in a developing country. METHODS: Matching of 92 HoLEP and 91 TVOP procedures was performed using resected prostate tissue weight as a sole matching criterion. Safety, efficacy, and accordingly health-related cost-efficiency of both procedures were statistically compared. RESULTS: Preoperative criteria and mean prostate size (166.7 ± 49.7, 161.4 ± 35.7 ml) were similar in HoLEP and TVOP, respectively; however, HoLEP treated more comorbid patients. Blood transfusion was 2.1 and 26.1 % after HoLEP and TVOP, respectively (P = 0.001). Median time to catheter removal and hospital stay was 2 days after HoLEP and 5 and 9 days, respectively, after TVOP (P < 0.001). On modified Clavien scale, grade per grade, there was no statistically significant difference between the two groups apart from local wound complications in TVOP group. High-grade complications (≥ grade 3) were reported in 3.2 and 6.5 % in HoLEP and TVOP, respectively (P = 0.49). Resected prostate tissue weight was independently associated with high-grade periprocedure complications (OR[95 %CI] 1.22[1.02:1.49], P = 0.03). Last follow-up symptom score, peak urine flow rate, residual urine, % PSA reduction, and need for reoperation were comparable between the two groups. HoLEP costs the hospital in the first 3 months 4111.8EP (575US$) versus 4305.4EP (602US$) for TVOP (P = 0.09). CONCLUSION: In high-volume hospital, HoLEP procedure seems to be equally safe and effective as TVOP with the advantages of minimally invasive procedures. Two years after adopting the technique, HoLEP equally costs the hospital as TVOP. Significant hospital cost savings are anticipated in subsequent cases.
OBJECTIVES: To assess the functional outcome and cumulative health-resource-related cost of holmium laser enucleation of the prostate (HoLEP) in comparison with transvesical open prostatectomy (TVOP) in a developing country. METHODS: Matching of 92 HoLEP and 91 TVOP procedures was performed using resected prostate tissue weight as a sole matching criterion. Safety, efficacy, and accordingly health-related cost-efficiency of both procedures were statistically compared. RESULTS: Preoperative criteria and mean prostate size (166.7 ± 49.7, 161.4 ± 35.7 ml) were similar in HoLEP and TVOP, respectively; however, HoLEP treated more comorbid patients. Blood transfusion was 2.1 and 26.1 % after HoLEP and TVOP, respectively (P = 0.001). Median time to catheter removal and hospital stay was 2 days after HoLEP and 5 and 9 days, respectively, after TVOP (P < 0.001). On modified Clavien scale, grade per grade, there was no statistically significant difference between the two groups apart from local wound complications in TVOP group. High-grade complications (≥ grade 3) were reported in 3.2 and 6.5 % in HoLEP and TVOP, respectively (P = 0.49). Resected prostate tissue weight was independently associated with high-grade periprocedure complications (OR[95 %CI] 1.22[1.02:1.49], P = 0.03). Last follow-up symptom score, peak urine flow rate, residual urine, % PSA reduction, and need for reoperation were comparable between the two groups. HoLEP costs the hospital in the first 3 months 4111.8EP (575US$) versus 4305.4EP (602US$) for TVOP (P = 0.09). CONCLUSION: In high-volume hospital, HoLEP procedure seems to be equally safe and effective as TVOP with the advantages of minimally invasive procedures. Two years after adopting the technique, HoLEP equally costs the hospital as TVOP. Significant hospital cost savings are anticipated in subsequent cases.
Authors: Peter J Gilling; Liam C Wilson; Colleen J King; Andre M Westenberg; Christopher M Frampton; Mark R Fraundorfer Journal: BJU Int Date: 2011-08-23 Impact factor: 5.588
Authors: Kevin T McVary; Claus G Roehrborn; Andrew L Avins; Michael J Barry; Reginald C Bruskewitz; Robert F Donnell; Harris E Foster; Chris M Gonzalez; Steven A Kaplan; David F Penson; James C Ulchaker; John T Wei Journal: J Urol Date: 2011-03-21 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: Ahmed M Elshal; Mohamed A Elkoushy; Ahmed R El-Nahas; Ahmed M Shoma; Adel Nabeeh; Serge Carrier; Mostafa M Elhilali Journal: J Urol Date: 2014-09-28 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: Andrea Salonia; Nazareno Suardi; Richard Naspro; Bruno Mazzoccoli; Giuseppe Zanni; Andrea Gallina; Lina Bua; Vincenzo Scattoni; Patrizio Rigatti; Francesco Montorsi Journal: Urology Date: 2006-08 Impact factor: 2.649
Authors: Richard Naspro; Nazareno Suardi; Andrea Salonia; Vincenzo Scattoni; Giorgio Guazzoni; Renzo Colombo; Andrea Cestari; Alberto Briganti; Bruno Mazzoccoli; Patrizio Rigatti; Francesco Montorsi Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2006-05-02 Impact factor: 20.096
Authors: Jean-Nicolas Cornu; Sascha Ahyai; Alexander Bachmann; Jean de la Rosette; Peter Gilling; Christian Gratzke; Kevin McVary; Giacomo Novara; Henry Woo; Stephan Madersbacher Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2014-06-25 Impact factor: 20.096
Authors: Ahmed M Elshal; Ahmed El-Assmy; Ramy Mekkawy; Diaa-Eldin Taha; Ahmed R El-Nahas; Mahmoud Laymon; Hamdy El-Kappany; El-Housseiny Ibrahiem Journal: Int Urol Nephrol Date: 2017-08-05 Impact factor: 2.370
Authors: Ahmed M Elshal; Yasser Eldemerdash; Ramy Mekkawy; Diaa-Eldin Taha; Mahmoud Laymon; Ahmed R El-Nahas; Ahmed El-Assmy Journal: Arab J Urol Date: 2016-03-17
Authors: Mehmet Yilmaz; Mustafa Karaaslan; Halil Cagri Aybal; Maximilian Ferry von Bargen; Senol Tonyali; Tuncay Toprak; Christian Gratzke; Arkadiusz Miernik Journal: Ann Med Surg (Lond) Date: 2022-07-31