Evaluation of Private Payer and Patient Out-of-Pocket Costs Associated With the Surgical Management of Benign Prostatic Hyperplasia.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate and compare the financial burden of various surgical interventions for the management of benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH). METHODS: We identified commercially insured men with a diagnosis of BPH who underwent a procedure of interest (simple prostatectomy (SP), transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP), holmium laser enucleation of the prostate (HoLEP), photovaporization of the prostate (PVP), prostatic urethral lift (PUL), or water vapor thermal therapy (WVTT)) between 2015 and 2021 with the OptumLabs Data Warehouse. Primary outcome was total health care costs (THC) which included both patient out-of-pocket (OOP) and health plan paid costs for the index procedure and combined follow-up years 1-5. A generalized linear model was used to estimate adjusted costs controlling for demographic and clinical characteristics. Patients undergoing WVTT were excluded from extended follow-up analyses due to limited data. RESULTS: Among 25,407 patients with BPH, 10,117 (40%) underwent TURP, 6353 (25%) underwent PUL, 5411 (21%) underwent PVP, 1319 (5%) underwent SP, 1243 (5%) underwent WVTT, and 964 (4%) underwent HoLEP. Index procedure costs varied significantly with WVTT being the least costly [THC: $2637 (95% confidence interval (CI): $2513-$2761)], and SP being the costliest [THC: $14,423 (95% CI: $12,772-$16,075)]. For aggregate index and 5-year follow-up costs, HoLEP ($31,926 [95% CI: $29,704-$34,148]) was the least costly and PUL ($36,596 [95% CI: $35,369-37,823]) was the costliest. CONCLUSION: BPH surgical treatment is associated with significant system-level health care costs. The level of impact varies between procedures. Minimally invasive options, such as WVTT, may offer initial cost reductions; however, HoLEP and SP are associated with lower follow-up costs.

Neuromuscular Paralysis is not a Barrier to Same Day Catheter Removal After HoLEP.

OBJECTIVE: To determine if same day catheter removal is feasible in a population of holmium laser enucleation of the prostate patients who received paralysis and if bladder pressure monitoring could predict successful catheter removal. METHODS: From February 2021 to February 2022, we evaluated same day catheter removal for patients undergoing holmium laser enucleation of the prostate. Criteria for proceeding with same day catheter removal included: an uncomplicated procedure, continuous bladder irrigation weaned within 120 minutes of arrival to PACU, minimal postoperative hematuria and a bladder pressure over 30 cmH20 as measured using the VP Test device (SRS Medical). RESULTS: One hundred and eight patients were enrolled, with a median age of 68 years (IQR: 62.0-73.0) and prostate volume 80.8cc (IQR: 64.8-112.3). Criteria for catheter removal was met by 83/108 (76.9%) patients. Of those that attempted a trial of void, 69/83 passed for an effective pass rate of 83.1%. Median maximum detrusor pressure for those that passed and failed were 51.0 cmH20 (IQR: 40.5 -68.0) and 48.0 cmH20 (IQR: 38.8-61.8) [P = .53], respectively. Intraoperative Lasix administration was associated with a higher rate of trial of void (TOV) success and preoperative PVR was associated with lower TOV success, with OR (95%CI) of 5.8 (1.4, 29.5) [P = .02] and 0.6 (0.4, 0.9) [P = .01], respectively. CONCLUSION: Same day catheter removal is feasible in those who receive neuromuscular paralysis, with a success rate >80%. Bladder pressure monitoring did not assist with differentiating which patients will pass or fail a trial of void. Intraoperative Lasix administration may be helpful in increasing success for same day catheter removal while elevated preoperative PVR was associated with TOV failure.

Evaluation of the Cost-Effectiveness of Surgical Treatment Options for Benign Prostatic Hyperplasia.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the cost-effectiveness of surgical interventions for BPH. METHODS: Using a Markov model, a cost-utility analysis was performed comparing HoLEP, B-TURP, WVTT, and PUL for prostate size <80cc (index patient 1) and HoLEP and SP for prostate size >80cc (index patient 2). Model probabilities and utility values were drawn from the literature. Analysis was performed at a 5-year time horizon with extrapolation to a lifetime horizon. Primary outcomes included quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), 2021 Medicare costs, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) with a willingness-to-pay threshold of $100,000/QALY. Univariate and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed. RESULTS: At 5 years, costs per patient for index patient 1 were $3292 (WVTT), $6532 (HoLEP), $6670 (B-TURP), and $10,257 (PUL). HoLEP resulted in the highest QALYs (4.66), followed by B-TURP (4.60), PUL (4.38), and WVTT (4.38). This translated to HoLEP being most cost-effective (ICER $11,847). For index patient 2, HoLEP was less costly ($6,585 vs $15,404) and more effective (4.654 vs 4.650) relative to SP. On sensitivity analysis for index patient 1, B-TURP became most cost-effective if cost of HoLEP increased two-fold or chronic stress incontinence following HoLEP increased ten-fold. When follow-up time was varied, WVTT was preferred at very short follow up (<1 year), and HoLEP became more strongly preferred with longer follow up. CONCLUSION: At 5 years follow up, HoLEP is a cost-effective surgical treatment for BPH- independent of gland size.

Salvage versus primary holmium laser enucleation of the prostate: trends, outcomes and safety analysis.

PURPOSE: To study the safety, efficacy and trends in index procedures leading to salvage holmium laser enucleation of the prostate (S-HoLEP). METHODS: This was a single-institution retrospective review of HoLEPs performed between 2006 and 2020. Patients who underwent S-HoLEP were compared to those undergoing primary holmium laser enucleation of the prostate (P-HoLEP). The endpoint of primary interest were functional outcomes. Changes in index procedures over the study period were analyzed. RESULTS: A total of 633 HoLEPs were performed during the study, with 217 being S-HoLEP. The S-HoLEP cohort was older than P-HoLEP cohort, 71.2 years vs 68.8 years (p = 0.03). All other factors were well matched. The most common index procedures prior to S-HoLEP included transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP) (87, 40.1%), transurethral microwave thermotherapy (TUMT) (44, 20.3%), photoselective vaporization of the prostate (PVP) (24, 11.1%) and prostatic urethral lift (PUL) (24, 11.1%). Preoperative prostate volume, IPSS and Qmax were similar between groups. Intra-operatively, S-HoLEP had longer procedure and morcellation times (p = 0.01 and 0.007). Postoperatively, the S-HoLEP cohort had longer catheter duration and hospitalization (both p < 0.001). Postoperative Qmax, IPSS and 90-day complication rates were similar. On temporal analysis, minimally invasive surgical therapies (MIST) have become more prevalent as index procedures. CONCLUSION: S-HoLEP is safe and efficacious for patients requiring additional BPH surgical intervention. S-HoLEP patients had longer operative times and hospital stays but equivalent postoperative functional outcomes compared to P-HoLEP. As MIST mature and gain traction, it is expected that rates of S-HoLEP will continue to rise.

Travel characteristics and outcomes for patients seeking HoLEP.

INTRODUCTION: Holmium laser enucleation of the prostate (HoLEP) is an effective but underutilized option for the surgical management of benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH). With low adoption, questions arise surrounding patients access to care. It is unclear whether patients undergoing HoLEP are local or specifically seek care from afar. We looked to determine the proportion of patients who traveled out-of-state for HoLEP treatment and the impact of travel on peri and postoperative metrics. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We performed a retrospective cohort study evaluating patients that underwent HoLEP at a single institution from 2007-2019. Patient demographic, perioperative data, postoperative outcomes, travel distance and income data were compared between those who traveled and did not travel out-of-state for care. RESULTS: From 2007-2019, 1565 patients underwent HoLEP at our institution. The mean age was 70.0 years, average body mass index (BMI) of 27.9 kg/m2, and 91.6% identified as Caucasian; 44.2% of patients traveled from out-of-state for HoLEP care, traveling a median of 597 miles. Patients who came from out-of-state had larger prostates (p = 0.005) and worse preoperative International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS) total and bother scores (p = 0.002). There was no difference in immediate, 30 or 90 day complications rates. In- and out-of-state patients had similar postoperative urinary and functional outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: A large proportion of patients specifically seek out HoLEP and travel out-of-state for care. The reasons are likely multifactorial -including advanced disease, lack of local care and healthcare consumerism. These results have implications both for those currently providing HoLEP as a treatment option as well as those motivated to start a HoLEP practice.