A double-blind randomized controlled trial and economic evaluation of transurethral resection vs contact laser vaporization for benign prostatic enlargement: a 3-year follow-up.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effect of contact laser prostate surgery in the treatment of benign prostatic hyperplasia. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A prospective double-blind randomized controlled trial of transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP) and contact laser prostatectomy was conducted, with an economic evaluation of both procedures. The primary outcome measure was the change in the American Urologic Association symptom score, with secondary outcome measures being the peak urinary flow rate, treatment-related complications, re-operation rate and health service costs. RESULTS: The perioperative blood loss and transfusion requirements were statistically significantly lower for laser prostatectomy than for TURP. There was no clinically significant difference between TURP and contact laser prostatectomy in the mean change in symptom scores and flow rates. There were distinct perioperative advantages in favour of the contact laser treatment, but some disadvantages in terms of re-catheterization and re-operation rates. CONCLUSIONS: Contact laser prostatectomy is a valid treatment for benign prostatic hypertrophy. The performance of contact laser prostatectomy as day-case surgery would have cost advantages to the National Health Service.

The Oxford Laser Prostate Trial: economic issues surrounding contact laser prostatectomy.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the economic implications of transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP) and contact-laser vaporization of the prostate (with the SLT system) using data obtained from a randomized controlled trial. METHODS: All aspects of management before, during and after surgery on 102 patients, followed up for 3 months, were costed and analysed. Based on the data from the trial, the mean costs were calculated. A sensitivity analysis was then performed to examine the effect of changes in some of the relevant variables. The mean difference in cost between laser treatment and TURP was plotted against the cost of laser consumables, assuming a 5% re-operation rate for both operations at 5 years and a 5% discount rate. A range of laser re-operation rates was compared with the mean difference in costs, assuming a hospital stay of one night and two district-nurse visits. Other assumptions on discounts and re-operation rates, based on collected data, were also tested. RESULTS: TURP will remain more economical until the cost of laser consumables is reduced to 20% of the current list price, or a hospital stay of one night is introduced. CONCLUSIONS: The costs of contact-laser vaporization of the prostate are likely to exceed the costs of TURP unless laser treatment is accompanied by a more active approach to post-operative management, including a hospital stay of one night and, if necessary, the removal of the patient's catheter at home by a district nurse.