Demir, Aslan2022-12-072022-12-072016-08Demir, A. vd. (2016). "Open vs laparoscopic simple prostatectomy: A comparison of initial outcomes and cost". Journal of Endourology, 30(8), 884-889.0892-77901557-900Xhttps://doi.org/10.1089/end.2016.0261https://www.liebertpub.com/doi/10.1089/end.2016.0261http://hdl.handle.net/11452/29728Introduction: We compared the cost-effectiveness of laparoscopic simple prostatectomy (LSP) vs open prostatectomy (OP). Patients and Methods: 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. Results: No statistical differences were found in the preoperative parameters, including age, IPSS and QoL score, maximum flow rate (Q(max)), 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 Q(max) 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. Conclusion: 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 Q(max) values. On the other hand, the mean cost of the LSP is higher than OP. Better effectiveness comes with higher cost.eninfo:eu-repo/semantics/closedAccessUrology & nephrologyBenign prostatic hyperplasiaExtraperitonealAdenomectomyAgedBlood loss, surgicalBlood transfusionConversion to open surgeryErectile dysfunctionFollow-up studiesHealth care costsHumansLaparoscopyMaleMiddle agedOperative timeOrgan sizePostoperative complicationsProstatectomyProstatic hyperplasiaQuality of lifeRetrospective studiesTime factorsUrinary catheterizationUrinary retentionArticle0003804970000082-s2.0-8498000255988488930827189387Urology & nephrologyTransurethral Resection; Enucleation; ThuliumAnalgesic agentAdultAgedArticleBleedingBlood transfusionCatheterizationClavien classificationControlled studyCost benefit analysisCost effectiveness analysisDisease classificationFlow rateHumanIntermethod comparisonInternational index of erectile functionInternational prostate symptom scoreLaparoscopic simple prostatectomyMajor clinical studyMaleMiddle agedOpen prostatectomyOperation durationOutcome assessmentPerioperative periodPostoperative complicationPriority journalProstate hypertrophyProstate volumeProstate weightProstatectomyQuality of lifeUrine flowmeterVery elderlyBladder catheterizationComparative studyConversion to open surgeryEconomicsErectile dysfunctionFollow upHealth care costLaparoscopyOperative blood lossOrgan sizePathologyPostoperative complicationProceduresProstate hypertrophyProstatectomyRetrospective studyStatistics and numerical dataTime factorUrine retentionUtilization