Therapeutic intervention for chronic prostatitis/chronic pelvic pain syndrome (CP/CPPS): a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Chronic prostatitis/chronic pelvic pain syndrome (CP/CPPS) has been treated with several different interventions with limited success. This meta-analysis aims to review all trials reporting on therapeutic intervention for CP/CPPS using the National Institutes of Health-Chronic Prostatitis Symptom Index (NIH-CPSI). METHODS: We searched Medline, PubMed, the Cochrane Pain, Palliative & Supportive Care Trials, the Cochrane Register of Controlled Trials, CINAHL, ClinicalTrials.gov, and the NIDDK website between 1947 and December 31, 2011 without language or study type restrictions. All RCTs for CP/CPPS lasting at least 6 weeks, with a minimum of 10 participants per arm, and using the NIH-CPSI score, the criterion standard for CP/CPPS, as an outcome measure were included. Data was extracted from each study by two independent reviewers. Gillbraith and I-squared plots were used for heterogeneity testing and Eggers and Peters methods for publication bias. Quality was assessed using a component approach and meta-regression was used to analyze sources of heterogeneity. RESULTS: Mepartricin, percutaneous tibial nerve stimulation (PTNS), and triple therapy comprised of doxazosin + ibuprofen + thiocolchicoside (DIT) resulted in clinically and statistically significant reduction in NIH-CPSI total score. The same agents and aerobic exercise resulted in clinically and statistically significant NIH-CPSI pain domain score reduction. Acupuncture, DIT, and PTNS were found to produce statistically and clinically significant reductions in the NIH-CPSI voiding domain. A statistically significant placebo effect was found for all outcomes and time analysis showed that efficacy of all treatments increased over time. Alpha-blockers, antibiotics, and combinations of the two failed to show statistically or clinically significant NIH-CPSI reductions. CONCLUSION: Results from this meta-analysis reflect our current inability to effectively manage CP/CPPS. Clinicians and researchers must consider placebo effect and treatment efficacy over time and design studies creatively so we can more fully elucidate the etiology and role of therapeutic intervention in CP/CPPS.

A comparative direct cost analysis of pediatric urologic robot-assisted laparoscopic surgery versus open surgery: could robot-assisted surgery be less expensive?

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Cost in healthcare is an increasing and justifiable concern that impacts decisions about the introduction of new devices such as the da Vinci(®) surgical robot. Because equipment expenses represent only a portion of overall medical costs, we set out to make more specific cost comparisons between open and robot-assisted laparoscopic surgery. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We performed a retrospective, observational, matched cohort study of 146 pediatric patients undergoing either open or robot-assisted laparoscopic urologic surgery from October 2004 to September 2009 at a single institution. Patients were matched based on surgery type, age, and fiscal year. Direct internal costs from the institution were used to compare the two surgery types across several procedures. RESULTS: Robot-assisted surgery direct costs were 11.9% (P=0.03) lower than open surgery. This cost difference was primarily because of the difference in hospital length of stay between patients undergoing open vs robot-assisted surgery (3.8 vs 1.6 days, P<0.001). Maintenance fees and equipment expenses were the primary contributors to robotic surgery costs, while open surgery costs were affected most by room and board expenses. When estimates of the indirect costs of robot purchase and maintenance were included, open surgery had a lower total cost. There were no differences in follow-up times or complication rates. CONCLUSIONS: Direct costs for robot-assisted surgery were significantly lower than equivalent open surgery. Factors reducing robot-assisted surgery costs included: A consistent and trained robotic surgery team, an extensive history of performing urologic robotic surgery, selection of patients for robotic surgery who otherwise would have had longer hospital stays after open surgery, and selection of procedures without a laparoscopic alternative. The high indirect costs of robot purchase and maintenance remain major factors, but could be overcome by high surgical volume and reduced prices as competitors enter the market.