2013
DOI: 10.1089/pop.2013.1691
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Optimizing Population Health and Economic Outcomes: Innovative Treatment for BPH

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
4
1

Citation Types

0
6
0

Year Published

2018
2018
2022
2022

Publication Types

Select...
5

Relationship

0
5

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 5 publications
(6 citation statements)
references
References 34 publications
0
6
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Briefly, the UroLIFT system is a series of cystoscopically‐placed implants that are placed from the other prostate capsule to the inner luminal aspect of the prostate, and work to manually retract the prostate lobe under tension. This has good effects in improving a patients symptoms scores but is associated with haematuria and dysuria. It has been approved for use in the most recent European Association of Urology guidelines, though long‐term efficacy data is still unavailable .…”
Section: Prostate Pathologies and Mechanical Characteristicsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Briefly, the UroLIFT system is a series of cystoscopically‐placed implants that are placed from the other prostate capsule to the inner luminal aspect of the prostate, and work to manually retract the prostate lobe under tension. This has good effects in improving a patients symptoms scores but is associated with haematuria and dysuria. It has been approved for use in the most recent European Association of Urology guidelines, though long‐term efficacy data is still unavailable .…”
Section: Prostate Pathologies and Mechanical Characteristicsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…9 In addition, PUL has also been found to have cost-savings associated with its ability to be performed as an outpatient procedure and its low complication rates. 10,11 Modeling the UK National Institute for Health and Care Excellence showed that when PUL is performed as an outpatient surgery, PUL produced savings of £286 per patient compared to monopolar TURP £159 per patient compared to bipolar TURP and £90 per patient compared to holmium laser enucleation of the prostate (HoLEP). 11 The efficacy of PUL was initially demonstrated in a clinical trial with 5-year follow-up, in the Luminal Improvement Following Prostatic Tissue Approximation (LIFT) study by Roehrborn et al [12][13][14][15] This sham-controlled trial with 206 subjects showed IPSS improvement of 41.1% at 3 years and 36% at 5 years.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…While TURP carries a small risk of post‐operative erectile dysfunction (ED), studies have demonstrated that PUL may actually even improve the Sexual Health Inventory in Men (SHIM) score in men with severe erectile dysfunction (ED) 9 . In addition, PUL has also been found to have cost‐savings associated with its ability to be performed as an outpatient procedure and its low complication rates 10,11 . Modeling the UK National Institute for Health and Care Excellence showed that when PUL is performed as an outpatient surgery, PUL produced savings of £286 per patient compared to monopolar TURP £159 per patient compared to bipolar TURP and £90 per patient compared to holmium laser enucleation of the prostate (HoLEP) 11…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…Recent studies of individuals with employer-sponsored insurance have described utilization patterns for preventive services, 7 delays in care, 8 as well as hospital admissions and emergency department visits, 9 but few have considered this information in light of social determinants of health, such as worker wage level 1 or place of residence. 10 To date, none have explored the prevalence of social determinants of health with associated clinical risk factors for common medical conditions within a large commercially insured population.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%