Transperineal prostate biopsy under local vs general anaesthesia: a cost-effectiveness analysis

IF 4.4 2区 医学 Q1 UROLOGY & NEPHROLOGY BJU International Pub Date : 2025-04-04 DOI:10.1111/bju.16722
Matthew J. Roberts, Shiksha Arora, Henry H. Yao, Donnacha Hogan, Brendan Dias, Helen E. O'Connell, David Wetherell, Homayoun Zargar, Michael Kwok, Stephen P. McGeorge, Adam Pearce, John Yaxley, Haitham Tuffaha
{"title":"Transperineal prostate biopsy under local vs general anaesthesia: a cost-effectiveness analysis","authors":"Matthew J. Roberts,&nbsp;Shiksha Arora,&nbsp;Henry H. Yao,&nbsp;Donnacha Hogan,&nbsp;Brendan Dias,&nbsp;Helen E. O'Connell,&nbsp;David Wetherell,&nbsp;Homayoun Zargar,&nbsp;Michael Kwok,&nbsp;Stephen P. McGeorge,&nbsp;Adam Pearce,&nbsp;John Yaxley,&nbsp;Haitham Tuffaha","doi":"10.1111/bju.16722","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Objectives</h3>\n \n <p>To estimate the cost effectiveness of local anaesthetic (LA) transperineal prostate biopsy (TPB) compared to general anaesthetic (GA) TPB, considering both hospital/health system and societal perspectives.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Patients and Methods</h3>\n \n <p>Individual-patient data from a prospective pilot study of 80 patients who underwent LA (<i>n</i> = 40) or GA (<i>n</i> = 40) TPB according to patient preference was used. A cost-effectiveness analysis was conducted using a decision tree model considering cancer detection rates, perioperative and return to work considerations between LA and GA TPB. The economic model included costs associated with consumables, device (capital, maintenance) and personnel for each approach. Cost-effectiveness was evaluated in terms of the incremental cost/quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) and incremental net monetary benefit. Probabilistic and one-way sensitivity analyses were performed.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Results</h3>\n \n <p>Clinical parameters were generally similar between groups, including overall (55%) and significant (35% vs 23%; <i>P</i> = 0.32) cancer detection and procedure-specific duration (20 vs 21 min; <i>P</i> = 0.53). Total procedure and recovery durations were longer in the GA group by 8 min (<i>P</i> &lt; 0.001) and 32.5 min (<i>P</i> &lt; 0.001), respectively. Participants in the LA group returned to work earlier than the GA group (2 vs 4 days; <i>P</i> = 0.046). There was a marginal gain in QALYs between the LA and GA groups (0.82385 vs 0.82383), but LA TPB had lower costs (Australian dollars [AU$]715.80 vs AU$1673.58), with an estimated average cost savings of ~AU$959. From the societal perspective, driven by the reduction in productivity loss, the average cost savings with LA TPB were ~AU$1639. Sensitivity analyses showed the probability of LA being cost effective was 100%, while utilisation of operating theatre for GA TPB was the main driver of cost difference.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Conclusion</h3>\n \n <p>Performing TPB via the LA approach would be cost-saving from both hospital and societal perspectives without reducing the accuracy of the biopsy.</p>\n </section>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":8985,"journal":{"name":"BJU International","volume":"136 1","pages":"128-134"},"PeriodicalIF":4.4000,"publicationDate":"2025-04-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/bju.16722","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"BJU International","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://bjui-journals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/bju.16722","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"UROLOGY & NEPHROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objectives

To estimate the cost effectiveness of local anaesthetic (LA) transperineal prostate biopsy (TPB) compared to general anaesthetic (GA) TPB, considering both hospital/health system and societal perspectives.

Patients and Methods

Individual-patient data from a prospective pilot study of 80 patients who underwent LA (n = 40) or GA (n = 40) TPB according to patient preference was used. A cost-effectiveness analysis was conducted using a decision tree model considering cancer detection rates, perioperative and return to work considerations between LA and GA TPB. The economic model included costs associated with consumables, device (capital, maintenance) and personnel for each approach. Cost-effectiveness was evaluated in terms of the incremental cost/quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) and incremental net monetary benefit. Probabilistic and one-way sensitivity analyses were performed.

Results

Clinical parameters were generally similar between groups, including overall (55%) and significant (35% vs 23%; P = 0.32) cancer detection and procedure-specific duration (20 vs 21 min; P = 0.53). Total procedure and recovery durations were longer in the GA group by 8 min (P < 0.001) and 32.5 min (P < 0.001), respectively. Participants in the LA group returned to work earlier than the GA group (2 vs 4 days; P = 0.046). There was a marginal gain in QALYs between the LA and GA groups (0.82385 vs 0.82383), but LA TPB had lower costs (Australian dollars [AU$]715.80 vs AU$1673.58), with an estimated average cost savings of ~AU$959. From the societal perspective, driven by the reduction in productivity loss, the average cost savings with LA TPB were ~AU$1639. Sensitivity analyses showed the probability of LA being cost effective was 100%, while utilisation of operating theatre for GA TPB was the main driver of cost difference.

Conclusion

Performing TPB via the LA approach would be cost-saving from both hospital and societal perspectives without reducing the accuracy of the biopsy.

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
局部麻醉与全身麻醉下经会阴前列腺活检:成本-效果分析
评估局麻(LA)经会阴前列腺活检(TPB)与全麻(GA) TPB相比的成本效益,同时考虑医院/卫生系统和社会观点。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
BJU International
BJU International 医学-泌尿学与肾脏学
CiteScore
9.10
自引率
4.40%
发文量
262
审稿时长
1 months
期刊介绍: BJUI is one of the most highly respected medical journals in the world, with a truly international range of published papers and appeal. Every issue gives invaluable practical information in the form of original articles, reviews, comments, surgical education articles, and translational science articles in the field of urology. BJUI employs topical sections, and is in full colour, making it easier to browse or search for something specific.
期刊最新文献
Response to comment by Semwal et al. Comment on 'Prostate zonal impact of 5α-reductase inhibitors on multiparametric MRI characteristics and detection of prostate cancer'. Area deprivation and cancer-specific mortality in non-muscle-invasive bladder cancer: a statewide analysis. Response to the Li et al. comment on 'Overall survival benefit after prophylactic urethrectomy: true oncological effect or unadjusted selection bias?' Comment on 'Overall survival benefit after prophylactic urethrectomy: true oncological effect or unadjusted selection bias?'
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1