Table 12HoLEP vs. TURP - Results of base case analysis

Mean cost (£)QALYsIncremental cost per QALY gained (HOLEP vs. TURP)Sensitivity analysis
TURP2,9388.5761-TURP is cost-effective if:

probability that TURP fails < 12%


probability that HoLEP fails > 13.5%


RR of Incontince (Holep vs TURP) >1.51


WMD in IPSS change <0.17


TURP is not possible after HoLEP


probability of incontinence after TURP and RR incontinence (HoLEP/TURP) are varied together (Figure 237).

HoLEP2,9208.6019HoLEP dominates (a)

HoLEP dominates means that HoLEP is both more effective and less costly. Hence the ICER cannot be calculated.

From: Appendix F, Cost-effectiveness analysis

Cover of The Management of Lower Urinary Tract Symptoms in Men
The Management of Lower Urinary Tract Symptoms in Men [Internet].
NICE Clinical Guidelines, No. 97.
National Clinical Guideline Centre (UK).
Copyright © 2010, National Clinical Guideline Centre.

Apart from any fair dealing for the purposes of research or private study, criticism or review, as permitted under the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act, 1988, no part of this publication may be reproduced, stored or transmitted in any form or by any means, without the prior written permission of the publisher or, in the case of reprographic reproduction, in accordance with the terms of licences issued by the Copyright Licensing Agency in the UK. Enquiries concerning reproduction outside the terms stated here should be sent to the publisher at the UK address printed on this page.

The use of registered names, trademarks, etc. in this publication does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt from the relevant laws and regulations and therefore for general use.

The rights of the National Clinical Guideline Centre to be identified as Author of this work have been asserted by them in accordance with the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act, 1988.

PubMed Health. A service of the National Library of Medicine, National Institutes of Health.