Suppr超能文献

希腊绿激光前列腺选择性汽化术与经尿道前列腺切除术的比较:成本分析。

Photoselective GreenLight™ laser vaporization versus transurethral resection of the prostate in Greece: a comparative cost analysis.

机构信息

Department of Urology, University Hospital of Patras, Patras, Greece.

出版信息

J Endourol. 2012 Feb;26(2):168-73. doi: 10.1089/end.2011.0089. Epub 2011 Nov 11.

Abstract

PURPOSE

To compare photoselective vaporization of the prostate (PVP) using the 120W GreenLight™ laser with transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP) in terms of their cost to the Greek National Health Service (NHS) or to the Public Insurance Sickness Funds (PISF).

PATIENTS AND METHODS

A prospective cost evaluation with 1-year follow-up of 60 patients with infravesical obstruction of benign prostatic hyperplasia origin who underwent o either TURP (n=30) or PVP (n=30). The cost of equipment, consumables, anesthesia, drugs, inpatient hospitalization, and complication management within 1 year postoperatively were used to calculate the cost for the NHS. PISF reimbursements to hospitals and PISF opportunity cost from the lost days of work were used to calculate PISF perspective.

RESULTS

From the NHS perspective, the average cost was €1722 ($2371) for PVP and €2132 ($2935) for TURP. From the PISF perspective, the average cost for hospital reimbursement was €1348 ($1856) in the case of PVP and €938 ($1291) in the case of TURP. Nevertheless, in the case of patients still working, total PISF reimbursement cost was €2038 ($2806) for PVP and €2666 ($3671) for TURP.

CONCLUSIONS

PVP for 40 to 70 cc prostates is preferable from the perspective of the NHS. From the perspective of PISF, PVP is less costly only in the case of patients who are still working, because patients who undergo PVP stay much less out of work. Further investigation in larger populations as well as in different protocols of PVP hospitalization and return to work times is deemed necessary to reinforce the conclusions of this study.

摘要

目的

比较经尿道前列腺绿激光汽化术(PVP)与经尿道前列腺切除术(TURP)在希腊国家卫生服务(NHS)或公共医疗保险基金(PISF)方面的成本。

方法

对 60 例因良性前列腺增生导致下尿路梗阻的患者进行前瞻性成本评估,随访 1 年。其中 30 例行 TURP,30 例行 PVP。计算 NHS 成本时,使用了设备、耗材、麻醉、药物、住院和术后 1 年内并发症管理的费用。使用 PISF 向医院报销的费用和因工作缺勤而损失的 PISF 机会成本来计算 PISF 视角。

结果

从 NHS 角度来看,PVP 的平均成本为 1722 欧元(2371 美元),TURP 的平均成本为 2132 欧元(2935 美元)。从 PISF 角度来看,PVP 的医院报销平均费用为 1348 欧元(1856 美元),TURP 的平均费用为 938 欧元(1291 美元)。然而,对于仍在工作的患者,PVP 的总 PISF 报销费用为 2038 欧元(2806 美元),TURP 的报销费用为 2666 欧元(3671 美元)。

结论

从 NHS 的角度来看,40 至 70 毫升前列腺的 PVP 是优选的。从 PISF 的角度来看,只有在仍在工作的患者中,PVP 的成本才较低,因为接受 PVP 的患者缺勤时间更短。需要进一步在更大的人群中以及不同的 PVP 住院和恢复工作时间方案中进行研究,以加强本研究的结论。

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验