This preprint reports an institutional cost minimisation analysis comparing index procedural costs for anatomical endoscopic enucleation of the prostate (AEEP) techniques. The techniques evaluated were bipolar transurethral enucleation (B-TUEP), holmium laser enucleation (HoLEP), thulium laser enucleation (ThuLEP), and thulium fibre laser enucleation (ThuFLEP). The analysis focuses on index procedural costs expressed in Singapore dollars and evaluates how consumable strategies and annual case volumes influence relative costs across modalities.
The authors developed a cost minimisation model from an institutional perspective. The model incorporated the following cost components: amortised capital costs, maintenance, and consumables. Analysis was restricted to index procedural costs; downstream costs, patient outcomes beyond clinical equivalence, and wider system costs were not included.
Three annual case-volume scenarios were modelled: a base-case of 180 cases per year, a low-volume scenario of 50 cases per year, and a high-volume scenario of 500 cases per year. Thu:YAG laser fibres were modelled under two consumable strategies: disposable single-use fibres, and reusable fibres reused up to 10 cases per fibre. Breakeven analysis determined the threshold annual volume at which each laser modality would reach cost parity with B-TUEP. A one-way sensitivity analysis was performed on key cost parameters to identify which inputs most strongly affected results.
Laser fibre scenarios:
These scenarios allowed assessment of how economies of scale and consumable re-use affect per-case costs for laser-based AEEP modalities relative to B-TUEP.
At the base-case volume of 180 cases per year, the model produced the following index procedural costs (SGD):
These results reflect combined effects of capital amortisation, maintenance, and per-case consumables under the base-case assumptions.
Breakeven analysis evaluated whether and at what annual volume laser modalities could achieve cost parity with B-TUEP. Key findings reported:
When Thu:YAG laser fibres are modelled as single-use disposables, HoLEP, ThuLEP, and ThuFLEP cannot achieve cost parity with B-TUEP because laser options carry higher capital and per-case costs under the single-use consumable assumption.
Under the reusable fibre assumption (up to 10 uses per Thu:YAG fibre), ThuLEP was the only laser modality to cross below B-TUEP costs. The breakeven annual volume for ThuLEP with reusable fibres was 198 cases per year.
At a high-volume scenario of 500 cases per year with reusable fibres, ThuLEP achieved the lowest index procedural cost (SGD 847), representing a 15.4% saving compared with B-TUEP at that volume.
These results indicate that consumable strategy and utilisation rates are decisive for whether laser-based enucleation can be cost-competitive with bipolar enucleation.
One-way sensitivity analysis identified the most influential parameters affecting index procedural costs. The two dominant drivers were:
The analysis therefore highlights both scale effects and specific consumable prices as pivotal for institutional decision-making.
The study concludes that index procedural costs across AEEP techniques are strongly influenced by case volume and consumable strategy. In low-volume practice, B-TUEP remains the most cost-efficient option under the modelled assumptions. In contrast, high-volume practice combined with reusable Thu:YAG fibre technology allows laser enucleation—specifically ThuLEP—to achieve cost parity and potentially a cost advantage compared with B-TUEP.
These findings underscore that adoption decisions for laser-based enucleation should consider institutional case volumes, options for reprocessing or reusing fibre consumables, and negotiated pricing for capital and consumables.
The analysis is limited to index procedural costs and does not include broader health-economic outcomes, patient-level costs beyond the index procedure, or long-term downstream costs. The dataset contains institution-specific procurement and pricing information that the authors state is commercially sensitive and therefore not publicly available. The authors indicate that de-identified data supporting the findings may be available from the corresponding author on reasonable request, subject to institutional approval.
This report is a preprint and has not undergone peer review; the authors explicitly note that the study should not be used to guide clinical practice without further validation. The authors declared no competing interests and confirmed adherence to relevant ethical guidelines and approvals.