Comparison of long-term effect and complications between holmium laser enucleation and transurethral resection of prostate: Nations-wide health insurance study

Objective: To describe the short and long-term complications of over 1000 cases of Holmium laser enucleation of the prostate (HoLEP) in a single centre. Methods: A prospective database of all HoLEP procedures performed between December 2003 and March 2017 was analysed. Results: A total of 1016 HoLEP procedures were performed. Median patient age was 72 years (range 41–95). There was a significant improvement in urinary flow, post-void residual volume, IPSS and QoL score ( p < 0.0001). Pre-operative acute urinary retention was present in 403 patients (39.7%). Post-operatively five patients (1.2%) continued with a long-term catheter. Early and late complications consisted of failed initial voiding trial (10.6%), stress incontinence (transient 6.5%; persistent 0.3%), frequency/dysuria (5.6%), urinary tract infection (5.3%), urethral stricture (4.8%), submeatal stenosis (1.9%), return to theatre (1.5%), bladder neck stenosis (1.3%), bleeding (1.2%), epididymitis (0.7%), confusion (0.3%), transurethral resection of the prostate conversion (0.2%), ureteric obstruction (0.2%), vomiting (0.2%), anuric renal failure (0.1%), chest infection (0.1%), chest pain (0.1%), myocardial infarction (0.1%), rectoprostatic fistula (0.1%), supraventricular tachycardia (0.1%) and urinary sepsis (0.1%). Five-year reoperation rate was 3.7%. Conclusion: HoLEP is a safe treatment for bladder outflow obstruction secondary to an enlarged prostate. It is associated with few early and late complications and has a low reoperation rate. Level of evidence: 4

Download Full-text

Holmium laser prostatectomy in a tertiary Italian center: A prospective cost analysis in comparison with bipolar TURP and open prostatectomy

Archivio Italiano di Urologia e Andrologia ◽

10.4081/aiua.2020.2.82 ◽

2020 ◽

Vol 92 (2) ◽

Author(s):

Riccardo Schiavina ◽

Lorenzo Bianchi ◽

Marco Giampaoli ◽

Marco Borghesi ◽

Hussam Dababneh ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Cost Analysis ◽

Prostate Volume ◽

Indirect Costs ◽

Holmium Laser ◽

Transurethral Resection Of Prostate ◽

Open Prostatectomy ◽

Global Cost ◽

Laser Enucleation ◽

Holmium Laser Enucleation

Objective: To assess the economic impact of Holmium laser enucleation of prostate (HoLEP) in comparison with transurethral resection of prostate (TURP) and open prostatectomy (OP). Methods: Between January 2017 and January 2018, we prospectively enrolled 151 men who underwent HoLEP, TURP or OP at tertiary Italian center, due to bladder outflow obstruction symptoms. Patients with prostate volume ≤ 70 cc and those with prostate volume > 70 cc were scheduled for TURP or HoLEP and OP or HoLEP, respectively. Intraoperative and early post-operative functional outcomes were recorded up to 6 months follow up. Cost analysis was carried out considering direct costs (operating room [OR] utilization costs, nurse, surgeons and anesthesiologists’ costs, OR disposable products costs and OR products sterilization costs), indirect costs (hospital stay costs and diagnostics costs) and global costs as sum of both direct and indirect plus general costs related to hospitalization. Cost analysis was performed comparing patients referred to TURP and HoLEP with prostate volume ≤ 70 cc and men underwent OP and HoLEP with prostate volume > 70 cc respectively. Results: Overall, 53 (35.1%), 51 (33.7%) and 47 (31.1%) were scheduled to HoLEP, TURP and OP, respectively. Both TURP, HoLEP and OP proved to effectively improve urinary symptoms related to BPE. Considering patients with prostate volume ≤ 70 cc, median global cost of HoLEP was similar to median global cost of TURP (2151.69 € vs. 2185.61 €, respectively; p = 0.61). Considering patients with prostate volume > 70 cc, median global cost of HoLEP was found to be significantly lower than median global cost of OP (2174.15 € vs. 4064.97 €, respectively; p ≤ 0.001). Conclusions: Global costs of HoLEP are comparable to those of TURP, offering a cost saving of only 11.4 € in favor of HoLEP. Conversely, HoLEP proved to be a strong competitor of OP because of significant global cost sparing amounting to 1890.82 € in favor of HoLEP.

Download Full-text