title: The TURis System for Transurethral Resection of the Prostate: A NICE Medical Technology Guidance.
abstract: The transurethral resection in saline (TURis) system was notified by the company Olympus Medical to the National Institute of Health and Care Excellence's (NICE's) Medical Technologies Evaluation Programme. Following selection for medical technologies guidance, the company developed a submission of clinical and economic evidence for evaluation. TURis is a bipolar surgical system for treating men with lower urinary tract symptoms due to benign prostatic enlargement. The comparator is any monopolar transurethral resection of the prostate (mTURP) system. Cedar, a collaboration between Cardiff and Vale University Health Board, Cardiff University and Swansea University in the UK, acted as an External Assessment Centre (EAC) for NICE to independently critique the company's submission of evidence. Eight randomised trials provided evidence for TURis, demonstrating efficacy equivalent to that of mTURP for improvement of symptoms. The company presented meta-analyses of key outcome measures, and the EAC made methodological modifications in response to the heterogeneity of the trial data. The EAC analysis found that TURis substantially reduced the relative risks of transurethral resection syndrome (relative risk 0.18 [95 % confidence interval 0.05-0.62]) and blood transfusion (relative risk 0.35 [95 % confidence interval 0.19-0.65]). The company provided a de novo economic model comparing TURis with mTURP. The EAC critiqued the model methodology and made modifications. This found TURis to be cost saving at £70.55 per case for existing Olympus customers and cost incurring at £19.80 per case for non-Olympus customers. When an additional scenario based on the only available data on readmission (due to any cause) from a single trial was modelled, the estimated cost saving per case was £375.02 for existing users of Olympus electrosurgery equipment and £284.66 per case when new Olympus equipment would need to be purchased. Meta-analysis of eight randomised trials showed that TURis is associated with a statistically significantly reduced risk of transurethral resection syndrome and a reduced need for blood transfusion-two factors that may drive cost saving for the National Health Service. The clinical data are equivocal as to whether TURis shortens the hospital stay. Limited data from a single study suggest that TURis may reduce the rate of readmission after surgery. The NICE guidance supports adoption of the TURis technology for performing transurethral resection of the prostate in men with lower urinary tract symptoms due to benign prostatic enlargement.
authors.affiliation: Cedar, Cardiff and Vale University Health Board, Cardiff Medicentre, Heath Park Campus, Cardiff, CF14 4UJ, UK. andrew.cleves@wales.nhs.uk.
authors.forename: Andrew
authors.identifier: http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0431-3138
authors.initials: A
authors.lastname: Cleves
authors.affiliation: National Institute for Health and Care Excellence, Manchester, UK.
authors.forename: Paul
authors.initials: P
authors.lastname: Dimmock
authors.affiliation: National Institute for Health and Care Excellence, Manchester, UK.
authors.forename: Neil
authors.initials: N
authors.lastname: Hewitt
authors.affiliation: Cedar, Cardiff and Vale University Health Board, Cardiff Medicentre, Heath Park Campus, Cardiff, CF14 4UJ, UK.
authors.forename: Grace
authors.initials: G
authors.lastname: Carolan-Rees
mesh_terms: D003362:Cost-Benefit Analysis; D006801:Humans; D008297:Male; D010043:Outcome and Process Assessment, Health Care / Q000191:economics; D011470:Prostatic Hyperplasia / Q000191:economics / Q000601:surgery*; D012965:Sodium Chloride; D020728:Transurethral Resection of Prostate / Q000191:economics / Q000379:methods*; D006113:United Kingdom
chemical_list: D012965:Sodium Chloride
references.citation: J Endourol. 2009 Jul;23(7):1145-9
references.pmid: 19530903
references.citation: Eur Urol. 2009 Nov;56(5):798-809
references.pmid: 19595501
references.citation: J Endourol. 2011 Jun;25(6):1043-9
references.pmid: 21568691
references.citation: Korean J Urol. 2011 Nov;52(11):763-8
references.pmid: 22195266
references.citation: Urologe A. 2007 Sep;46(9):1148-50
references.pmid: 17619851
references.citation: BJU Int. 2010 Nov;106(9):1339-43
references.pmid: 20477825
references.citation: Eur Urol. 2007 Aug;52(2):517-22
references.pmid: 17416453
references.citation: J Endourol. 2012 Aug;26(8):1053-8
references.pmid: 22296567
references.citation: Actas Urol Esp. 2006 Jul-Aug;30(7):661-6
references.pmid: 17058610
references.citation: Urol Int. 2009;83(1):55-9
references.pmid: 19641360
references.citation: J Urol. 2007 Nov;178(5):2035-9; discussion 2039
references.pmid: 17869297
references.citation: Urology. 2011 Oct;78(4):930-5
references.pmid: 21802121
references.citation: Health Technol Assess. 2008 Nov;12 (35):iii, ix-x, 1-146, 169-515
references.pmid: 19032882
references.citation: Int J Urol. 2014 Mar;21(3):313-8
references.pmid: 23980711
references.citation: J Endourol. 2009 Dec;23(12):2013-20
references.pmid: 19821694
references.citation: Minim Invasive Ther Allied Technol. 2010 Aug;19(4):207-13
references.pmid: 20642387
references.citation: Scand J Urol Nephrol. 2010 Sep;44(4):228-35
references.pmid: 20345336
references.citation: Arch Med Sci. 2011 Oct;7(5):858-63
references.pmid: 22291832
references.citation: J Endourol. 2010 Aug;24(8):1333-7
references.pmid: 20583960
references.citation: J Endourol. 2006 Apr;20(4):244-6; discussion 246-7
references.pmid: 16646649
references.citation: Transfus Med. 2003 Aug;13(4):205-18
references.pmid: 12880391
references.citation: BJU Int. 2010 Jun;105(11):1560-4
references.pmid: 19912211
references.citation: Appl Health Econ Health Policy. 2012 Sep 1;10(5):295-7
references.pmid: 22909081
references.citation: Eur Urol. 2013 Jul;64(1):118-40
references.pmid: 23541338
references.citation: BJU Int. 2013 Jan;111(1):129-36
references.pmid: 22672229