Several factors contribute to savings
Further analyses showed that numerous items contributed to the cost savings associated with the bipolar procedure. Bipolar TURP was performed significantly less often as an inpatient procedure compared with monopolar TURP (12.7% vs. 21.5%), which was important because overall index costs were 66% lower for outpatient versus inpatient cases. Cost breakdowns for inpatient cases showed total cost per patient was significantly lower for bipolar TURP than for monopolar TURP ($8,167 vs. $11,179). Main contributors to this difference were a significantly lower rate of intensive care unit admissions with bipolar TURP than with monopolar TURP (8% vs. 28%) as well as a significantly shorter inpatient hospital stay (3.5 vs. 5.0 days).
In addition, bipolar TURP conferred savings of between 22% and 48% in analyses of costs related to room and board, pharmacy, operating room, and laboratory.
There was no statistically significant difference in index outpatient costs between the bipolar and monopolar procedures when the analysis excluded “outlier hospitals,” defined as those with costs in the lower or upper quartiles.
Funding for the analysis was provided by Olympus Corporation of the Americas.
More from Urology Times:
Subscribe to Urology Times to get monthly news from the leading news source for urologists.