Cost Analysis of Surgical Approaches Performed by Residents for Bladder Outlet Obstruction: Laser versus Loop


Purpose: Few studies have analyzed cost differences between holmium laser enucleation of the prostate (HoLEP) and transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP), and none as regards resident training. We compared these costs at a teaching institution with residents from two Boston programs. Methods: We reviewed all patients who underwent TURP (January 2007-August 2010) or HoLEP (April 2008-August 2010) with residents, excluding those with prostate cancer, simultaneous procedures at the same time, or prior urethral procedures. Operative approach was determined following consultation between the senior resident and the attending surgeon. Operative, postoperative, and urologic follow-up costs were captured and analyzed from day of surgery to 6 months post-operatively. Costs were calculated by the Department of Decision Support Services. Results: 38 HoLEP and 23 TURP patients met inclusion criteria. The two groups were comparable with the exception of higher ASA score and anticoagulation use in the HoLEP group. Despite a decreased hospital stay (0.42 vs. 1.25 days), total costs for HoLEP were higher than TURP ($8380.00 vs. $5861.78 p < 0.05) due to higher operative times (123 min vs. 74 min, p < 0.05), resulting in higher operative costs ($6768.14 vs. $3853.35, p < 0.05). Conclusions: HoLEP costs are higher than TURP from longer operative times and higher intraoperative costs, partly due to resident teaching. However, senior residents more often selected HoLEP for medically complex and/or anticoagulated patients. Despite resident inexperience with HoLEP, the complication rate remained low. Higher costs must be weighed against HoLEP benefits, which include less morbidity, shorter hospital stays and faster recovery times.

Share and Cite:

S. H. Eaton, C. K. Rowe, M. B. DelPapa and L. B. Lerner, "Cost Analysis of Surgical Approaches Performed by Residents for Bladder Outlet Obstruction: Laser versus Loop," Open Journal of Urology, Vol. 2 No. 2, 2012, pp. 33-37. doi: 10.4236/oju.2012.22007.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.


[1] L. B. Lerner and M. D. Tyson, “Holmium Laser Applications of the Prostate,” Urologic Clinics of North America, Vol. 36, No. 4, 2009, pp. 485-495. doi:10.1016/j.ucl.2009.07.005
[2] Accessed 18 September 2011.
[3] S. J. Hudak, C. L. Landt, J. Hernandez and D. W. Soderdahl, “External Validation of a Virtual Reality Transurethral Resection of the Prostate Simulator,” The Journal of Urology, Vol. 184, No. 5, 2010, pp. 2018-2022. doi:10.1016/j.juro.2010.06.141
[4] R. M. Kuntz, S. Ahyai, K. Lehrich and A. Fayad, “Transurethral Holmium Laser Enucleation of the Prostate versus Transurethral Electrocautery Resection of the Prostate: A Randomized Prospective Trial in 200 Patients,” The Journal of Urology, Vol. 172, No. 3, 2004, pp. 1012-1016. doi:10.1097/01.ju.0000136218.11998.9e
[5] R. M. Mavuduru, A. K. Mandal, S. K. Singh, N. Acharya, M. Agarwal, S. Garg and S. Kumar, “Comparison of HoLEP and TURP in Terms of Efficacy in the Early Postoperative Period and Perioperative Morbidity,” Urologia Internationalis, Vol. 82, No. 2, 2009, pp. 130-135. doi:10.1159/000200786
[6] A. H. Tan, P. J. Gilling, K. M. Kennett, C. Frampton, A. M. Westenberg and M. R. Fraundorfer, “A Randomized Trial Comparing Holmium Laser Enucleation of the Prostate with Transurethral Resection of the Prostate for the Treatment of Bladder Outlet Obstruction Secondary to Benign Prostatic Hyperplasia in Large Glands (40 to 200 Grams),” The Journal of Urology, Vol. 170, No. 4, 2003, pp. 1270-1274. doi:10.1097/01.ju.0000086948.55973.00
[7] H. N. Shah, A. P. Mahajan, H. S. Sodha, S. Hegde, P. D. Mohile and M. B. Bansal, “Prospective Evaluation of the Learning Curve for Holmium Laser Enucleation of the Prostate,” The Journal of Urology, Vol. 177, No. 4, 2007, pp. 1468-1474. doi:10.1016/j.juro.2006.11.091
[8] A. C. Goh and R. R. Gonzalez, “Photoselective Laser Vaporization Prostatectomy versus Transurethral Prostate Resection: A Cost Analysis,” The Journal of Urology, Vol. 183, No. 4, 2010, pp. 1469-1473. doi:10.1016/j.juro.2009.12.020
[9] P. J. Gilling, T. F. Aho, C. M. Frampton, C. J. King and M. R. Fraundorfer, “Holmium Laser Enucleation of the Prostate: Results at 6 Years,” European Urology, Vol. 53, No. 4, 2008, pp. 744-749. doi:10.1016/j.eururo.2007.04.052
[10] E. A. Elzayat and M. M. Elhilali, “Holmium laser Enucleation of the Prostate (HoLEP): Long-Term Results, Reoperation Rate, and Possible Impact of the Learning Curve,” European Urology, Vol. 52, No. 5, 2007, pp. 1465-1471. doi:10.1016/j.eururo.2007.04.074
[11] O. Reich, C. Gratzke and C. G. Stief, “Techniques and Long-Term Results of Surgical Procedures for BPH,” European Urology, Vol. 49, No. 6, 2000, pp. 970-978. doi:10.1016/j.eururo.2005.12.072
[12] G. L. Lu-Yao, M. J. Barry, C. H. Chang, J. H. Wasson and J. E. Wennberg, “Transurethral Resection of the Prostate among Medicare Beneficiaries in the United States: Time Trends and Outcomes. Prostate Patient Outcomes Research Team (PORT),” Urology, Vol. 44, No. 5, 1774, pp. 692-698.
[13] R. M. Kuntz, K. Lehrich and S. A. Ahyai, “Holmium Laser Enucleation of the Prostate versus Open Prostatectomy for Prostates Greater than 100 Grams: 5-Year Follow-Up Results of a Randomised Clinical Trial,” European Urology, Vol. 53, No. 1, 2008, pp. 160-166. doi:10.1016/j.eururo.2007.08.036
[14] R. C. Augusteyn, G. Vrensen and B. Willekens, “The Effect of Paraformaldehyde Fixation and PBS Storage on the Water Content of the Human Lens,” Molecular Vision, Vol. 14, 2008, pp. 90-94.
[15] S. Jonmarker, A. Valdman, A. Lindberg, M. Hellstr?m and L. Egevad, “Tissue Shrinkage after Fixation with Formalin Injection of Prostatectomy Specimens,” Virchows Archiv, Vol. 449, No. 3, 2006, pp. 297-301. doi:10.1007/s00428-006-0259-5

Copyright © 2022 by authors and Scientific Research Publishing Inc.

Creative Commons License

This work and the related PDF file are licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.