Scholarlink

Purpose <p>To compare hospital-based direct costs of care for patients with benign prostatic hyperplasia undergoing open simple prostatectomy (OSP) versus holmium laser enucleation of the prostate (HoLEP).</p> Materials and methods <p>A retrospective hospital-based direct cost analysis was performed through review of medical records and institutional billing data for patients surgically treated for BPH with OSP versus HoLEP. Direct costs included personnel, facilities, equipment, consumables, and medications. Costs were retrieved from the institutional billing system and converted to U.S. dollars using the official exchange rate at the time of billing.</p> Results <p>Fifty patients were included (25 per group). Age and prostate volume were comparable between groups. Patients undergoing open simple prostatectomy (OSP) had a longer length of stay and more frequent postoperative ICU admission, resulting in higher total direct hospital costs compared with HoLEP (USD 4,676 vs. USD 3,360; <i>p</i> &lt; 0.001). Although initial procedural costs were higher for HoLEP, this did not result in higher total costs.</p> Conclusions <p>Despite higher procedural costs, HoLEP was associated with lower short-term hospital-based direct costs than OSP. Reduced postoperative resource utilization was the principal determinant of the lower total hospital costs observed with HoLEP. These findings provide context-specific economic evidence to support institutional decision-making in similar healthcare settings.</p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

Hospital-based direct cost comparison between open simple prostatectomy and HoLEP

  • 期刊论文

  • 发表日期：

    2026年7月6日

查看全文
  • Mariela Montanile,
  • Wilmer Soliz,
  • Horacio Sanguinetti,
  • Norberto Bernardo

摘要

Purpose

To compare hospital-based direct costs of care for patients with benign prostatic hyperplasia undergoing open simple prostatectomy (OSP) versus holmium laser enucleation of the prostate (HoLEP).

Materials and methods

A retrospective hospital-based direct cost analysis was performed through review of medical records and institutional billing data for patients surgically treated for BPH with OSP versus HoLEP. Direct costs included personnel, facilities, equipment, consumables, and medications. Costs were retrieved from the institutional billing system and converted to U.S. dollars using the official exchange rate at the time of billing.

Results

Fifty patients were included (25 per group). Age and prostate volume were comparable between groups. Patients undergoing open simple prostatectomy (OSP) had a longer length of stay and more frequent postoperative ICU admission, resulting in higher total direct hospital costs compared with HoLEP (USD 4,676 vs. USD 3,360; p < 0.001). Although initial procedural costs were higher for HoLEP, this did not result in higher total costs.

Conclusions

Despite higher procedural costs, HoLEP was associated with lower short-term hospital-based direct costs than OSP. Reduced postoperative resource utilization was the principal determinant of the lower total hospital costs observed with HoLEP. These findings provide context-specific economic evidence to support institutional decision-making in similar healthcare settings.