{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.034547738693467334, 'fraction_numerical': 0.029522613065326633, 'mean_word_length': 4.988721804511278, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
[Economic evaluation of treatment for benign prostatic hyperplasia--transurethral resection vs thermotherapy vs laser vaporization].

OBJECTIVE
Cost containment has become an important issue in medical practice because of recent bad economic conditions. We analyzed the cost of benign prostatic hypertrophy (BPH) patients and cost-effective analysis was carried out comparing transurethral resection of prostate (TURP), visual laser ablation of the prostate (VLAP) and transurethral microwave thermotherapy (TUMT).


MATERIALS & METHODS
Our series consists of 95 BPH patients treated with TURP, VLAP and TUMT between January 1, 1994 and March 31, 1997. The cost for each patient was calculated (46 were treated with TURP, 31 with VLAP and 28 with TUMT). Considering the clinical outcome, cost-effectiveness was compared in 3 groups retrospectively.


RESULTS
The median level of total charges (insurance points) was 59,395 points for the TURP group, 66,784 points for the VLAP group and 14,927 points for the TUMT group. The median follow-up period was 12.4 months, 46.7 months and 14.4 months, respectively. Several patients needed medication after operation in the VLAP group. In the TUMT group, 3 patients needed re-operation and 5 other needed an alternative surgical method (TURP or transurethral needle ablation) and 1 needed both methods.


DISCUSSION
TUMT is the most cost-effective method, however the recurent rate is highest in the follow-up period among the three groups. The costs of recurent cases were most expensive. We should select surgical treatment for BPH very carefully.