Hostname: page-component-669899f699-7xsfk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-04-26T01:35:39.397Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Cost-Effectiveness of Laser Ablation of the Prostate: Premature Evaluation

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 March 2009

Terri Jackson ,
Andrew Street ,
Anthony Costello  and
Helen Crowe
Terri Jackson
Affiliation:
National Centre for Health Program Evaluation
Andrew Street
Affiliation:
National Centre for Health Program Evaluation
Anthony Costello
Affiliation:
St. Vincent's Hospital
Helen Crowe
Affiliation:
St. Vincent's Hospital
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

A cost-effectiveness study compared visual laser ablation of the prostate (VLAP) with transurethral resection (TURP). Achieving equivalent outcomes, VLAP was more expensive than TURP. The result was sensitive to various assumptions, suggesting that VLAP might prove to be the preferred technology. Problems inherent in economic evaluation of emerging technologies are discussed.

Type
General Essays
Information
International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care , Volume 11 , Issue 3 , Summer 1995 , pp. 595 - 610
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1995

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

1.Banta, H. D., & Luce, B. R.Health care technology and its assessment: An international perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1993.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
2.Banta, H. D., & Vondeling, H.Strategies for successful evaluation and policy-making toward health care technology on the move: The case of medical lasers. Paper prepared for an EC Workshop on From Results to Action: The Role of Economic Appraisal in Developing Policy for Health Technology. Heraklion, Crete, 10 1992.Google Scholar
3.Barry, M. J.Medical outcomes research and benign hyperplasia. The Prostatic Supplement, 1990, 3, 61–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
4.Barry, M. J., Fowler, F. J., O'Leary, M. P., et al. The American Urological Association Symptom index for benign prostatic hyperplasia. Journal of Urology, 1992, 148, 1549–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
5.Chute, C. G., Stephenson, W. P., Guess, H. A., & Lieber, M. M.Surgically treated benign prostatic hypertrophy in Rochester, Minnesota, 1980–87 (abstract). Journal of Urology, 1993, 179, 264A.Google Scholar
6.Costello, A. J.Laser prostatectomy (letter). Medical Journal of Australia, 1992, 157, 504.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
7.Costello, A. J., Bowsher, W. G., Bolton, D. M., et al. Laser ablation of the prostate in patients with benign prostatic hypertrophy. British Journal of Urology, 1992, 69, 603–08.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
8.Costello, A. J., Crowe, H. R., Jackson, T., & Street, A. Randomized study at a single institution comparing laser prostatectomy and transurethral resection of the prostate. In press.Google Scholar
9.Costello, A. J., Johnson, D. E., & Bolton, D. M.Nd:YAG laser ablation of the prostate as a treatment for benign prostatic hypertrophy. Lasers in Surgery and Medicine, 1992, 12, 121–24.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
10.Dankiw, W., & Hailey, D.Technologies in the treatment of benign prostatic hyperplasia. Canberra: Australian Institute for Health and Welfare, 1993.Google Scholar
11.Dean, G. E., Blaivas, J. G., & Kaplan, S. A.The differential diagnosis of prostatism (abstract). Journal of Urology, 1993, 179, 264A.Google Scholar
12.Drummond, M. F., McGuire, A. J., Black, N. A., et al. Economic burden of treated benign prostatic hyperplasia in the United Kingdom. British Journal of Urology, 1993, 71, 290–96.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
13.Holtgrewe, H. L., Mebust, W. K., Dowd, J. B., et al. Transurethral prostatectomy: Practice aspects of the dominant operation in American urology. Journal of Urology, 1989, 141, 248–53.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
14.Kabalin, J. N.Laser prostatectomy performed with a right angle firing Neodymium YAG laser fibre at 40 watts power setting. Journal of Urology, 1993, 150, 95–99.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
15.Kirk, D.How should new treatments for benign prostatic hyperplasia be assessed? Symptomatic measurements are not enough. British Medical Journal, 1993, 306, 1283–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
16.Klimberg, I. W., Locke, D. R., Leonard, E., et al. Outpatient transurethral resection of the prostate at an urologic ambulatory surgery center (abstract). Journal of Urology, 1993, 179, 321A.Google Scholar
17.Lagaida, R., & Hindle, D.A casemix classification for hospital-based ambulatory services: A report from the National Ambulatory Casemix Project. Sydney: New South Wales Department of Health, 1992.Google Scholar
18.Leach, G. E., Sirls, L., Ganabathi, K., et al. , Outpatient visual laser assisted prostatectomy under local anesthesia. In press.Google Scholar
19.McLoughlin, M. G., & Kinahan, T. J.Transurethral resection of the prostate in the outpatient setting. Journal of Urology, 1990, 143, 951–52.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
20.Mebust, W. K., Holtgrewe, H. L., Cockett, A. T. K., & Peters, P. C.Transurethral prostatectomy: Immediate and postoperative complications. A cooperative study of 13 participating institutions evaluating 3,885 patients. Journal of Urology, 1989, 141, 243–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
21.Transition Systems, Inc., Transition 1: A functional overview. Boston: Transition Systems, Inc, 1987.Google Scholar