In-hospital cost analysis of aquablation compared with transurethral resection of the prostate in the treatment of benign prostatic enlargement.

PURPOSE: To compare in-hospital treatment costs of aquablation and transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP) in the treatment of benign prostatic enlargement. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patient data and procedural details were derived from a prospective database. In-hospital costs were calculated using detailed expenditure reports provided by the hospital accounts department. Total costs including those arising from surgical procedures, consumables, personnel and accommodation were analysed for 24 consecutive patients undergoing aquablation and compared with 24 patients undergoing TURP during the same period. Mean total costs and mean costs for individual expense items were compared between treatment groups with t-tests. RESULTS: Mean total costs per patient (± standard deviation) were higher for aquablation at EUR 10,994 ± 2478 than for TURP at EUR 7445 ± 2354. The mean difference of EUR 3549 was statistically significant (p <0.001). Although the mean procedural costs were significantly higher for aquablation (mean difference EUR 3032; p <0.001), costs apart from the procedure were also lower for TURP, but the mean difference of EUR 1627 was not significant (p <0.327). Medical supplies were mainly responsible (mean difference EUR 2057; p <0.001) for the difference in procedural costs. CONCLUSIONS: In-hospital costs are significantly higher for aquablation than for TURP, mainly due to higher costs of medical supplies for the procedure. This difference should be taken into consideration, at least in patients for whom the different side effect profiles of both treatments are irrelevant.

Readability Assessment of Commonly Used German Urological Questionnaires.

PURPOSE: We intended to assess the readability of the German versions of commonly used urological questionnaires and identify questions that are potentially demanding for patients. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The Guidelines of the European Association of Urology were analyzed for recommended questionnaires. Readability of the German versions of these questionnaires including their respective single-items was analyzed using established readability assessment tools. RESULTS: A total of 13 questionnaires were analyzed. The calculated readability scores ranged between the 4.3th and 10.3th grade level. Easiest readability as calculated by median grade levels was found for the short and long forms of the International Consultation on Incontinence Questionnaires-Female and -Male Lower Urinary Tract Symptoms and the SF-Qualiveen (all median grade level 5.0). The short form of the International Index of Erectile Function showed the hardest readability (median grade level 10.0). Readability of the single-items varied widely between the assessed questionnaires with up to 80% (the International Index of Erectile Function) of their single-items being written above recommended grade levels. CONCLUSIONS: The majority of commonly used German urological questionnaires comply with recommended readability levels. Some questionnaires as well as single-items of most of the questionnaires clearly exceed recommended readability levels. This should be considered for interpretation of their results and when revising questionnaires.