TURP vs. New Minimally Invasive BPH Treatments: An Australian Cost-Effectiveness Study

What is it about?

This research discusses a cost-effectiveness analysis of newer minimally invasive surgical treatments (MISTs) for benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) compared to the traditional transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP) in the Australian healthcare system. The study focused on water vapour thermal therapy (WVTT) and prostatic urethral lift (PUL) as alternatives to TURP. Using a Markov state transition model, the researchers simulated outcomes over a 10-year horizon for a 65-year-old man with a prostate size <80 mL. The analysis considered procedural costs, re-operation rates, and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). Results showed that WVTT could be cost-effective if performed as a day case, while PUL was not cost-effective in any scenario. The study emphasizes the importance of individual assessment for each MIST from an economic perspective and highlights the need to consider long-term costs of secondary treatments. The researchers also note that MISTs offer benefits in terms of sexual function preservation, which may be valuable for certain patients, especially younger men.

Featured Image

Why is it important?

This research is important because it provides a comprehensive economic analysis of emerging minimally invasive surgical treatments (MISTs) for benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) compared to the gold standard transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP). As healthcare systems worldwide grapple with rising costs and the need for more efficient treatments, this study offers valuable insights into the cost-effectiveness of new technologies in urology. By examining the long-term economic impact of these procedures, including factors such as re-intervention rates and quality of life outcomes, the research helps inform decision-making processes for healthcare providers, policymakers, and patients alike. Key Takeaways: 1. Cost-Effectiveness: Water vapor thermal therapy (WVTT) can be a cost-effective alternative to TURP when performed as a day-case procedure, while prostatic urethral lift (PUL) is not cost-effective due to higher re-intervention rates and costs. 2. Quality of Life Considerations: While MISTs may be more expensive, they offer benefits such as lower rates of ejaculatory dysfunction, which can be particularly important for younger patients and should be considered in treatment decisions. 3. Healthcare System Impact: The study demonstrates the importance of individual assessment for each MIST from an economic perspective, considering not only immediate costs but also long-term outcomes and re-intervention rates in a public-payer healthcare setting.