PD23-04 THULIUM LASER ENUCLEATION (THULEP) VERSUS TRANSURETHRAL RESECTION OF THE PROSTATE IN SALINE (TURIS): A RANDOMIZED PROSPECTIVE TRIAL TO COMPARE COSTS PER PROCEDURE

Abstract

You have accessJournal of UrologyBenign Prostatic Hyperplasia: Surgical Therapy & New Technology III1 Apr 2017PD23-04 THULIUM LASER ENUCLEATION (THULEP) VERSUS TRANSURETHRAL RESECTION OF THE PROSTATE IN SALINE (TURIS): A RANDOMIZED PROSPECTIVE TRIAL TO COMPARE COSTS PER PROCEDURE Giorgio Bozzini, Stefano Casellato, Serena Maruccia, giovanni saredi, paolo parma, and Gianluigi Taverna Giorgio BozziniGiorgio Bozzini More articles by this author , Stefano CasellatoStefano Casellato More articles by this author , Serena MarucciaSerena Maruccia More articles by this author , giovanni saredigiovanni saredi More articles by this author , paolo parmapaolo parma More articles by this author , and Gianluigi TavernaGianluigi Taverna More articles by this author View All Author Informationhttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2017.02.1068AboutPDF ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload CitationsTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints ShareFacebookTwitterLinked InEmail INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES To compare the costs per procedure between thulium laser transurethral enucleation of the prostate (ThuLEP) and transurethral bipolar resection of the prostate (TURIS) for treating benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) in a prospective randomized trial. METHODS The study randomized 208 consecutive patients with BPH to ThuLEP (n = 102) or TURIS (n =106). For all patients were evaluated preoperatively with regards to blood loss, catheterization time, irrigation volume, hospital stay and operative time. At 3 months after surgery they were also evaluated by International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS), maximum flow rate (Qmax), and postvoid residual urine volume (PVR) to see if a cost reduction could be correlated with a worst outcome. RESULTS The patients in each study arm each showed no significant difference in preoperative parameters. Compared with TURIS, ThuLEP had same operative time (53.69±31.44 vs 61.66±18.70 minutes, P = .123) but resulted in less hemoglobin decrease (0.45 vs 2.83 g/dL, P = .005). ThuLEP also needed less catheterization time (1.3 vs 4.8 days, P = .011), irrigation volume (29.4 vs 69.2 L, P = .002), and hospital stay (1.7 vs 5.2 days, P = .016). Average cost for a ThuLEP was 1181 euros while was 1761,16 for a TURIS (p< .005). During the 3 months of follow-up, the procedures did not demonstrate a significant difference in Qmax, IPSS, PVR, and QOLS. CONCLUSIONS ThuLEP and TURIS both relieve lower urinary tract symptoms equally, with high efficacy and safety. ThuLEP was statistically superior to TURIS as a cheaper procedure. However, procedures did not differ significantly in Qmax, IPSS, PVR, and QOLS through 3 months of follow-up. © 2017FiguresReferencesRelatedDetails Volume 197Issue 4SApril 2017Page: e448 Advertisement Copyright & Permissions© 2017MetricsAuthor Information Giorgio Bozzini More articles by this author Stefano Casellato More articles by this author Serena Maruccia More articles by this author giovanni saredi More articles by this author paolo parma More articles by this author Gianluigi Taverna More articles by this author Expand All Advertisement Advertisement PDF downloadLoading ...