[Economic evaluation of treatment for benign prostatic hyperplasia--transurethral resection vs thermotherapy vs laser vaporization].

OBJECTIVE: Cost containment has become an important issue in medical practice because of recent bad economic conditions. We analyzed the cost of benign prostatic hypertrophy (BPH) patients and cost-effective analysis was carried out comparing transurethral resection of prostate (TURP), visual laser ablation of the prostate (VLAP) and transurethral microwave thermotherapy (TUMT). MATERIALS & METHODS: Our series consists of 95 BPH patients treated with TURP, VLAP and TUMT between January 1, 1994 and March 31, 1997. The cost for each patient was calculated (46 were treated with TURP, 31 with VLAP and 28 with TUMT). Considering the clinical outcome, cost-effectiveness was compared in 3 groups retrospectively. RESULTS: The median level of total charges (insurance points) was 59,395 points for the TURP group, 66,784 points for the VLAP group and 14,927 points for the TUMT group. The median follow-up period was 12.4 months, 46.7 months and 14.4 months, respectively. Several patients needed medication after operation in the VLAP group. In the TUMT group, 3 patients needed re-operation and 5 other needed an alternative surgical method (TURP or transurethral needle ablation) and 1 needed both methods. DISCUSSION: TUMT is the most cost-effective method, however the recurent rate is highest in the follow-up period among the three groups. The costs of recurent cases were most expensive. We should select surgical treatment for BPH very carefully.

[Impact of a clinical pathway in cases of transurethral resection of the prostate].

OBJECTIVE: Because of recent increases in health care costs, cost containment has become a important issue in medical practice. We evaluated the effect on cost and clinical outcome with the implementation of clinical care pathway for transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP) patients. MATERIALS & METHODS: Our series consists of 69 consecutive patients treated with TURP between June 1, 1999 and March 31, 2000. The patients were divided into two groups at random. Thirty-two patients were treated on the clinical pathway (pathway group) and 37 patients were not placed on the clinical pathway program (non-pathway group). Total hospital charges, average length of stay and clinical outcomes were compared in two groups. RESULTS: The average of total hospital charges (insurance points) and average length of stay were 48,424.2 point, and 12.7 days for the pathway group, and 55.365.5 point, and 14.7 days for non-pathway group respectively. Postoperative complications and rehospitalization did not differ between two groups. DISCUSSION: With the implementation of the clinical care pathway, average hospital charges and length of stay were reduced. The clinical pathway program is considered to be a good tool for health care cost management. This methodology can be applied to all patients. However, when we make the clinical pathway program, we take into account the individuality of each patients.