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.

Informative value of histological assessment of tissue acquired during aquablation of the prostate.

PURPOSE: To determine the histological validity of the tissue acquired during aquablation of the prostate. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Prostatic tissue of 12 patients that consecutively underwent aquablation for benign prostatic enlargement was systematically examined. Histological examination was performed by two experienced uropathologists using a digital slide scanner and slide viewer software (Pannoramic 250 and Case Viewer 2.3, 3D Histech, Hungary). The surface areas of the assessable glands were examined and set in relation to the total surface area of the material available for histology and to the patient's total prostate volume. Examinations were performed analogously in ten consecutive patients undergoing transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP) to facilitate interpretation of the results. Data were analyzed using descriptive statistics. RESULTS: A median of 4.06% (range 1.43-7.5%) of the preoperative total prostate volume (median 64.5 ml (range 40-80 ml)) was obtained for histological examination by aquablation. Due to severe mechanical destruction and fragmentation, only a proportion of 0.43% (0.06-1.79%) of this tissue represented histologically assessable glands. Therefore, roughly 0.017% of the total prostatic volume was available for a reliable histological examination. In comparison, 32.5% (6.67-37.5%) of the total prostate volume was removed by TURP and 22.86% (7.45-40.57%) of this tissue represented informative prostatic glands, corresponding to 7.43% of the total prostate volume. CONCLUSION: Histological significance of the tissue obtained by aquablation of the prostate is very limited. Costs and effort of the histological examination must, therefore, be weighed critically against the limited informative value.

Systematic assessment of information about surgical urinary stone treatment on YouTube.

PURPOSE: To systematically assess the quality of videos on the surgical treatment of urinary stones available on YouTube using validated instruments. METHODS: A systematic search for videos on YouTube addressing treatment options of urinary stones was performed in October 2019. Assessed parameters included basic data (e.g. number of views), the grade of misinformation reporting of conflicts of interest. Quality of content was analyzed using the validated DISCERN questionnaire. Data were analyzed using descriptive statistics. RESULTS: A total of 100 videos with a median of 26,234 views (1020-1,720,521) were included in the analysis. Of these, only 26 videos were rated to contain no misinformation and only nine disclosed potential conflicts of interest. Overall, the median quality of the videos was low (2 out of 5 points for DISCERN question 16). Videos uploaded by healthcare professionals and medical societies/organizations offered significantly higher levels of quality. In particular, the videos provided by the EAU achieved the highest rating with a median score of 3.0. CONCLUSIONS: The majority of videos concerning the surgical treatment of urinary stones have a low quality of content, are potentially subject to commercial bias and do not report on conflicts of interest. Videos provided by medical societies, such as the EAU, provide a higher level of quality. This highlights the importance of active recommendation of evidence-based patient education materials.

In-hospital cost analysis of prostatic artery embolization compared with transurethral resection of the prostate: post hoc analysis of a randomized controlled trial.

OBJECTIVES: To perform a post hoc analysis of in-hospital costs incurred in a randomized controlled trial comparing prostatic artery embolization (PAE) and transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP). PATIENTS AND METHODS: In-hospital costs arising from PAE and TURP were calculated using detailed expenditure reports provided by the hospital accounts department. Total costs, including those arising from surgical and interventional procedures, consumables, personnel and accommodation, were analysed for all of the study participants and compared between PAE and TURP using descriptive analysis and two-sided t-tests, adjusted for unequal variance within groups (Welch t-test). RESULTS: The mean total costs per patient (±sd) were higher for TURP, at €9137 ± 3301, than for PAE, at €8185 ± 1630. The mean difference of €952 was not statistically significant (P = 0.07). While the mean procedural costs were significantly higher for PAE (mean difference €623 [P = 0.009]), costs apart from the procedure were significantly lower for PAE, with a mean difference of €1627 (P < 0.001). Procedural costs of €1433 ± 552 for TURP were mainly incurred by anaesthesia, whereas €2590 ± 628 for medical supplies were the main cost factor for PAE. CONCLUSIONS: Since in-hospital costs are similar but PAE and TURP have different efficacy and safety profiles, the patient's clinical condition and expectations - rather than finances - should be taken into account when deciding between PAE and TURP.