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.

Morbidity and mortality after surgery for lower urinary tract symptoms: a study of 95 577 cases from a nationwide German health insurance database.

BACKGROUND: Little real-world data is available on the comparison of different methods in surgery for lower urinary tract symptoms due to benign prostatic obstruction in terms of complications. The objective was to evaluate the proportions of TURP, open prostatectomy (OP) and laser-based surgical approaches over time and to analyse the effect of approach on complication rates. METHODS: Using data of the German local healthcare funds (Allgemeine Ortskrankenkassen (AOK)), we identified 95 577 cases with a primary diagnosis of hyperplasia of prostate who received TURP, laser vaporisation (LVP), laser enucleation (LEP) of the prostate or OP between 2008 and 2013. Univariable logistic regression was used to analyse proportions of surgical approach over time, and the effect of surgical method on outcomes was analysed by means of multivariable logistic regression. RESULTS: The proportion of TURP decreased from 83.4% in 2008 to 78.7% in 2013 (P<0.001). Relative to TURP and adjusting for age, co-morbidities, AOK hospital volume, year of surgery and antithrombotic medication, OP had increased mortality (odds ratio (OR) 1.47, P<0.05), transfusions (OR 5.20, P<0.001) and adverse events (OR 2.17, P<0.001), and lower re-interventions for bleeding (OR 0.75, P<0.001) and long-term re-interventions (OR 0.55, P<0.001). LVP carried a lower risk of transfusions (OR 0.57, P<0.001) and re-interventions for bleeding (OR 0.76, P<0.001), but a higher risk of long-term re-interventions (OR 1.43, P<0.001). LEP had increased re-interventions for bleeding (OR 1.35, P<0.01). Complications were also dependent on age and co-morbidity. Limitations include the lack of clinical information and functional results. CONCLUSIONS: OP has the greatest risks of complication despite a low re-intervention rate. LVP demonstrated favourable results for transfusion and bleeding, but increased long-term re-interventions compared with TURP, while LEP showed increased re-interventions for bleeding. Findings support a careful indication and choice of method for surgery for LUTS, taking age and co-morbidities into account.

Incidence, predictors, and associated outcomes of prostatism after kidney transplantation.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Renal transplantation is increasingly performed in elderly patients, and the incidence of benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) increases with age. Anuric males on dialysis may have occult BPH and not develop obstructive symptoms until urine flow is restored after transplantation. If left untreated, BPH poses a risk for numerous complications, including acute urinary retention (AUR), recurrent urinary tract infections (UTI), and renal failure. The authors hypothesized that incident BPH after renal transplantation would adversely affect allograft survival. DESIGN, SETTING, PARTICIPANTS, & MEASUREMENTS: Medicare claims for BPH, AUR, UTI, and prostate resection procedures (transurethral resection of the prostate; TURP) were assessed in a retrospective cohort of 23,622 adult male Medicare primary renal transplant recipients in the United States Renal Data System database who received transplants from 1 January 2000 to 31 July 2005 and followed through 31 December 2005. RESULTS: The 3-yr incidence of BPH post-transplant was 9.7%. The incidences of AUR, UTI, and TURP after BPH diagnosis (up to 3 yr posttransplant) were 10.3%, 6.5%, and 7.3% respectively, and each was significantly associated with BPH. Cox regression analysis showed that recipient age per year, later year of transplant, and dialysis vintage were associated with incident BPH. Using Cox nonproportional hazards regression, BPH was significantly associated with renal allograft loss (including death). CONCLUSIONS: BPH is common in males after renal transplant and is independently associated with AUR, UTI, and graft loss. It is unknown whether treatment of BPH, either medical or surgical, attenuates these risks.