Open vs Laparoscopic Simple Prostatectomy: A Comparison of Initial Outcomes and Cost

• Published in: Journal of endourology Vol. 30; no. 8; p. 884
• Main Authors: Demir, Aslan, Günseren, Kadir Ömür, Kordan, Yakup, Yavaşçaoğlu, İsmet, Vuruşkan, Berna Aytaç, Vuruşkan, Hakan
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: United States 01-08-2016
• Subjects: Aged; Blood Loss, Surgical; Blood Transfusion - utilization; Conversion to Open Surgery - statistics & numerical data; Erectile Dysfunction - epidemiology; Follow-Up Studies; Health Care Costs; Humans; Laparoscopy - economics; Laparoscopy - methods; Male; Middle Aged; Operative Time; Organ Size; Postoperative Complications - epidemiology; Prostatectomy - economics; Prostatectomy - methods; Prostatic Hyperplasia - pathology; Prostatic Hyperplasia - surgery; Quality of Life; Retrospective Studies; Time Factors; Urinary Catheterization; Urinary Retention - epidemiology
• ISSN: 1557-900X
• DOI: 10.1089/end.2016.0261

We compared the cost-effectiveness of laparoscopic simple prostatectomy (LSP) vs open prostatectomy (OP).
A total of 73 men treated for benign prostatic hyperplasia were enrolled for OP and LSP in groups 1 and 2, respectively. The findings were recorded perioperative, including operation time (OT), blood lost, transfusion rate, conversion to the open surgery, and the complications according to the Clavien Classification. The postoperative findings, including catheterization and drainage time, the amount of analgesic used, hospitalization time, postoperative complications, international prostate symptom score (IPSS) and International Index of Erectile Function (IIEF) scores, the extracted prostate weight, the uroflowmeter, as well as postvoiding residual (PVR) and quality of life (QoL) score at the postoperative third month, were analyzed. The cost of both techniques was also compared statistically.
No statistical differences were found in the preoperative parameters, including age, IPSS and QoL score, maximum flow rate (Qmax), PVR, IIEF score, and prostate volumes, as measured by transabdominal ultrasonography. No statistical differences were established in terms of the OT and the weight of the extracted prostate. No differences were established with regard to complications according to Clavien's classification in groups. However, the bleeding rate was significantly lower in group 2. The drainage, catheterization, and hospitalization times and the amount of analgesics were significantly lower in the second group. The postoperative third month findings were not different statistically. Only the Qmax values were significantly greater in group 2. While there was only a $52 difference between groups with regard to operation cost, this difference was significantly different.
The use of LSP for the prostates over 80 g is more effective than the OP in terms of OT, bleeding amount, transfusion rates, catheterization time, drain removal time, hospitalization time, consumed analgesic amount, and Qmax values. On the other hand, the mean cost of the LSP is higher than OP. Better effectiveness comes with higher cost.