Journals Library

Health Technology Assessment

Volume 24 • Issue 41 • September 2020
ISSN 1366-5278

Thulium laser transurethral vaporesection

versus transurethral resection of the
prostate for benign prostatic obstruction:
the UNBLOCS RCT
Jo Worthington, J Athene Lane, Hilary Taylor, Grace Young, Sian M Noble,
Paul Abrams, Aideen Ahern, Sara T Brookes, Nikki Cotterill, Lyndsey Johnson,
Rafiyah Khan, Aida Moure Fernandez, Tobias Page, Satchi Swami and Hashim Hashim
on behalf of the UNBLOCS Trial Group

DOI 10.3310/hta24410
Thulium laser transurethral vaporesection
versus transurethral resection of the
prostate for benign prostatic obstruction:
the UNBLOCS RCT

Jo Worthington,1 J Athene Lane,1 Hilary Taylor,1

Grace Young,1 Sian M Noble,1 Paul Abrams,2
Aideen Ahern,1 Sara T Brookes,1 Nikki Cotterill,2
Lyndsey Johnson,2 Rafiyah Khan,2
Aida Moure Fernandez,1 Tobias Page,3
Satchi Swami4 and Hashim Hashim2*
on behalf of the UNBLOCS Trial Group
1Bristol Randomised Trials Collaboration (BRTC), Population Health Sciences,
Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK
2Bristol Urological Institute, Southmead Hospital, North Bristol NHS Trust, Bristol, UK
3Department of Urology, Freeman Hospital, Newcastle upon Tyne Hospitals NHS

Foundation Trust, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK

4Urology Department, Aberdeen Royal Infirmary, NHS Grampian, Aberdeen, UK

*Corresponding author

Declared competing interests of authors: Paul Abrams reports grants and personal fees from Astellas
Pharma Inc. (Tokyo, Japan), and personal fees from Pfizer Inc. (Walton Oaks, UK), Ipsen (Paris, France),
Ferring Pharmaceuticals (Saint Prex, Switzerland), Pierre Fabre (Paris, France), Coloplast UK (Orton, UK)
and Sun Pharmaceuticals Industries Ltd (Mumbai, India), outside the submitted work.

Published September 2020

DOI: 10.3310/hta24410

This report should be referenced as follows:

Worthington J, Lane JA, Taylor H, Young G, Noble SM, Abrams P, et al. Thulium laser
transurethral vaporesection versus transurethral resection of the prostate for benign prostatic
obstruction: the UNBLOCS RCT. Health Technol Assess 2020;24(41).

Health Technology Assessment is indexed and abstracted in Index Medicus/MEDLINE, Excerpta

Medica/EMBASE, Science Citation Index Expanded (SciSearch®) and Current Contents®/
Clinical Medicine.
Health Technology Assessment HTA/HTA TAR

ISSN 1366-5278 (Print)

ISSN 2046-4924 (Online)

Impact factor: 3.370

Health Technology Assessment is indexed in MEDLINE, CINAHL, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library and Clarivate Analytics Science Citation Index.

This journal is a member of and subscribes to the principles of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) (www.publicationethics.org/).

Editorial contact: journals.library@nihr.ac.uk

The full HTA archive is freely available to view online at www.journalslibrary.nihr.ac.uk/hta. Print-on-demand copies can be purchased from the
report pages of the NIHR Journals Library website: www.journalslibrary.nihr.ac.uk

Criteria for inclusion in the Health Technology Assessment journal

Reports are published in Health Technology Assessment (HTA) if (1) they have resulted from work for the HTA programme, and (2) they
are of a sufficiently high scientific quality as assessed by the reviewers and editors.

Reviews in Health Technology Assessment are termed ‘systematic’ when the account of the search appraisal and synthesis methods
(to minimise biases and random errors) would, in theory, permit the replication of the review by others.

HTA programme
Health Technology Assessment (HTA) research is undertaken where some evidence already exists to show that a technology can be effective
and this needs to be compared to the current standard intervention to see which works best. Research can evaluate any intervention used in
the treatment, prevention or diagnosis of disease, provided the study outcomes lead to findings that have the potential to be of direct benefit
to NHS patients. Technologies in this context mean any method used to promote health; prevent and treat disease; and improve rehabilitation
or long-term care. They are not confined to new drugs and include any intervention used in the treatment, prevention or diagnosis of disease.

The journal is indexed in NHS Evidence via its abstracts included in MEDLINE and its Technology Assessment Reports inform National Institute
for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) guidance. HTA research is also an important source of evidence for National Screening Committee (NSC)
policy decisions.

This report
The research reported in this issue of the journal was funded by the HTA programme as project number 12/35/15. The contractual start date
was in January 2014. The draft report began editorial review in March 2018 and was accepted for publication in February 2019. The authors
have been wholly responsible for all data collection, analysis and interpretation, and for writing up their work. The HTA editors and publisher
have tried to ensure the accuracy of the authors’ report and would like to thank the reviewers for their constructive comments on the draft
document. However, they do not accept liability for damages or losses arising from material published in this report.

This report presents independent research funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR). The views and opinions expressed by
authors in this publication are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of the NHS, the NIHR, NETSCC, the HTA programme
or the Department of Health and Social Care. If there are verbatim quotations included in this publication the views and opinions expressed
by the interviewees are those of the interviewees and do not necessarily reflect those of the authors, those of the NHS, the NIHR, NETSCC,
the HTA programme or the Department of Health and Social Care.

© Queen’s Printer and Controller of HMSO 2020. This work was produced by Worthington et al. under the terms of a
commissioning contract issued by the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care. This issue may be freely reproduced for the
purposes of private research and study and extracts (or indeed, the full report) may be included in professional journals provided
that suitable acknowledgement is made and the reproduction is not associated with any form of advertising. Applications for
commercial reproduction should be addressed to: NIHR Journals Library, National Institute for Health Research, Evaluation, Trials
and Studies Coordinating Centre, Alpha House, University of Southampton Science Park, Southampton SO16 7NS, UK.

Published by the NIHR Journals Library (www.journalslibrary.nihr.ac.uk), produced by Prepress Projects Ltd, Perth, Scotland
(www.prepress-projects.co.uk).
NIHR Journals Library Editor-in-Chief
Professor Ken Stein Professor of Public Health, University of Exeter Medical School, UK

NIHR Journals Library Editors

Professor John Powell Chair of HTA and EME Editorial Board and Editor-in-Chief of HTA and EME journals.
Consultant Clinical Adviser, National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE), UK, and Senior Clinical Researcher,
Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, UK

Professor Andrée Le May Chair of NIHR Journals Library Editorial Group (HS&DR, PGfAR, PHR journals) and
Editor-in-Chief of HS&DR, PGfAR, PHR journals

Professor Matthias Beck Professor of Management, Cork University Business School, Department of Management
and Marketing, University College Cork, Ireland

Dr Tessa Crilly Director, Crystal Blue Consulting Ltd, UK

Dr Eugenia Cronin Senior Scientific Advisor, Wessex Institute, UK

Dr Peter Davidson Consultant Advisor, Wessex Institute, University of Southampton, UK

Ms Tara Lamont Senior Scientific Adviser (Evidence Use), Wessex Institute, University of Southampton, UK

Dr Catriona McDaid Senior Research Fellow, York Trials Unit, Department of Health Sciences,
University of York, UK

Professor William McGuire Professor of Child Health, Hull York Medical School, University of York, UK

Professor Geoffrey Meads Professor of Wellbeing Research, University of Winchester, UK

Professor John Norrie Chair in Medical Statistics, University of Edinburgh, UK

Professor James Raftery Professor of Health Technology Assessment, Wessex Institute, Faculty of Medicine,
University of Southampton, UK

Dr Rob Riemsma Reviews Manager, Kleijnen Systematic Reviews Ltd, UK

Professor Helen Roberts Professor of Child Health Research, UCL Great Ormond Street Institute of Child Health, UK

Professor Jonathan Ross Professor of Sexual Health and HIV, University Hospital Birmingham, UK

Professor Helen Snooks Professor of Health Services Research, Institute of Life Science, College of Medicine,
Swansea University, UK

Professor Ken Stein Professor of Public Health, University of Exeter Medical School, UK

Professor Jim Thornton Professor of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences,
University of Nottingham, UK

Professor Martin Underwood Warwick Clinical Trials Unit, Warwick Medical School, University of Warwick, UK

Please visit the website for a list of editors: www.journalslibrary.nihr.ac.uk/about/editors

Editorial contact: journals.library@nihr.ac.uk

NIHR Journals Library www.journalslibrary.nihr.ac.uk

 DOI: 10.3310/hta24410 HEALTH TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT 2020 VOL. 24 NO. 41

Abstract

Thulium laser transurethral vaporesection versus

transurethral resection of the prostate for benign prostatic
obstruction: the UNBLOCS RCT

Jo Worthington,1 J Athene Lane,1 Hilary Taylor,1 Grace Young,1

Sian M Noble,1 Paul Abrams,2 Aideen Ahern,1 Sara T Brookes,1
Nikki Cotterill,2 Lyndsey Johnson,2 Rafiyah Khan,2
Aida Moure Fernandez,1 Tobias Page,3 Satchi Swami4
and Hashim Hashim2* on behalf of the UNBLOCS Trial Group
1Bristol Randomised Trials Collaboration (BRTC), Population Health Sciences, Bristol Medical
School, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK
2Bristol Urological Institute, Southmead Hospital, North Bristol NHS Trust, Bristol, UK
3Department of Urology, Freeman Hospital, Newcastle upon Tyne Hospitals NHS Foundation

Trust, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK

4Urology Department, Aberdeen Royal Infirmary, NHS Grampian, Aberdeen, UK

*Corresponding author h.hashim@gmail.com

Background: Transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP) is the standard operation for benign prostatic
obstruction (BPO). Thulium laser transurethral vaporesection of the prostate (ThuVARP) vaporises and
resects the prostate using a technique similar to TURP. The small amount of existing literature suggests
that there may be potential advantages of ThuVARP over TURP.
Objective: To determine whether or not the outcomes from ThuVARP are equivalent to the outcomes
from TURP in men with BPO treated in the NHS.
Design: A multicentre, pragmatic, randomised controlled parallel-group trial, with an embedded
qualitative study and economic evaluation.
Setting: Seven UK centres – four university teaching hospitals and three district general hospitals.
Participants: Men aged ≥ 18 years who were suitable to undergo TURP, presenting with bothersome
lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS) or urinary retention secondary to BPO.
Interventions: Patients were randomised 1 : 1 to receive TURP or ThuVARP and remained blinded.
Main outcome measures: Two co-primary outcomes – patient-reported International Prostate Symptom
Score (IPSS) and clinical measure of maximum urine flow rate (Qmax) at 12 months post surgery.
Results: In total, 410 men were randomised, 205 to each arm. The two procedures were equivalent in
terms of IPSS [adjusted mean difference 0.28 points higher for ThuVARP (favouring TURP), 95% confidence
interval (CI) –0.92 to 1.49 points]. The two procedures were not equivalent in terms of Qmax (adjusted
mean difference 3.12 ml/second in favour of TURP, 95% CI 0.45 to 5.79 ml/second), with TURP deemed
superior. Surgical outcomes, such as complications and blood transfusion rates, and hospital stay were
similar for both procedures. Patient-reported urinary and sexual symptoms were also similar between the
arms. Qualitative interviews indicated similar patient experiences with both procedures. However, 25% of

© Queen’s Printer and Controller of HMSO 2020. This work was produced by Worthington et al. under the terms of a commissioning contract issued by the Secretary of State for
Health and Social Care. This issue may be freely reproduced for the purposes of private research and study and extracts (or indeed, the full report) may be included in professional
journals provided that suitable acknowledgement is made and the reproduction is not associated with any form of advertising. Applications for commercial reproduction should
v
be addressed to: NIHR Journals Library, National Institute for Health Research, Evaluation, Trials and Studies Coordinating Centre, Alpha House, University of Southampton Science
Park, Southampton SO16 7NS, UK.
 ABSTRACT

participants in the ThuVARP arm did not undergo their randomised allocation, compared with 2% of
participants in the TURP arm. Prostate cancer was also detected less frequently from routine histology after
ThuVARP (65% lower odds of detection) in an exploratory analysis. The adjusted mean differences between
the arms were similar for secondary care NHS costs (£9 higher for ThuVARP, 95% CI –£359 to £376) and
quality-adjusted life-years (0.01 favouring TURP, 95% CI –0.04 to 0.01).
Limitations: Complications were recorded in prespecified categories; those not prespecified were excluded
owing to variable reporting. Preoperative Qmax and IPSS data could not be collected for participants with
indwelling catheters, making adjustment for baseline status difficult.
Conclusions: TURP was superior to ThuVARP in terms of Qmax, although both operations resulted in
a Qmax considered clinically successful. ThuVARP also potentially resulted in lower detection rates of
prostate cancer as a result of the smaller volume of tissue available for histology. Length of hospital stay
after ThuVARP, anticipated to be a key benefit, was equal to that after TURP in this trial. Overall, both
ThuVARP and TURP were effective procedures for BPO, with minor benefits in favour of TURP. Therefore,
the results suggest that it may be appropriate that new treatment alternatives continue to be compared
with TURP.
Future work: Longer-term follow-up to assess reoperation rates over time, and research into the
comparative effectiveness of ThuVARP and TURP in large prostates.
Trial registration: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN00788389.
Funding: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology
Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 24, No. 41.
See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

vi
NIHR Journals Library www.journalslibrary.nihr.ac.uk
 DOI: 10.3310/hta24410 HEALTH TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT 2020 VOL. 24 NO. 41

Contents

List of tables xi

List of figures xiii

List of abbreviations xv

Plain English summary xvii

Scientific summary xix

Chapter 1 Introduction 1
Scientific background and review of current literature 1
Rationale for the trial 3
Study aims and objectives 3

Chapter 2 Methods 5
Trial design 5
Ethics approval and research governance 5
Participants 6
Interventions 6
Surgeon training in using the laser 6
Outcome measures 7
Primary outcome 7
Secondary outcomes 7
Equivalence margin 8
Sample size 8
Randomisation and implementation 9
Blinding 9
Data collection 9
Patient and public involvement 9
Statistical methods 10
Primary analysis 11
Secondary outcomes 11
Sensitivity analyses 13
Subgroup analyses 13
Multiple imputation 14

Chapter 3 Results 15
Participant flow 15
Recruitment 15
Concomitant procedures 15
Baseline data 15
Numbers analysed 15
Statistical outcomes and estimation 21
International Prostate Symptom Score 21
Maximum urine flow rate values 22
Primary analysis results 25
Success of blinding 25

© Queen’s Printer and Controller of HMSO 2020. This work was produced by Worthington et al. under the terms of a commissioning contract issued by the Secretary of State for
Health and Social Care. This issue may be freely reproduced for the purposes of private research and study and extracts (or indeed, the full report) may be included in professional
journals provided that suitable acknowledgement is made and the reproduction is not associated with any form of advertising. Applications for commercial reproduction should
vii
be addressed to: NIHR Journals Library, National Institute for Health Research, Evaluation, Trials and Studies Coordinating Centre, Alpha House, University of Southampton Science
Park, Southampton SO16 7NS, UK.
 CONTENTS

Secondary outcomes: surgical complications 26

Secondary outcomes: patient-reported outcomes 29
Statistical ancillary analyses 31
Subgroup analyses 31
Sensitivity analyses 31
Serious adverse events 36
Pathological findings 36
Serious adverse events 36
Statistical results summary 39

Chapter 4 Economic evaluation 41

Introduction 41
Methods 41
Measurement and valuation of relevant resource use 41
Outcome data collection and valuation 43
Data cleaning and missing costs and outcomes 43
Analysis 44
Cost–consequences analysis 44
Cost-effectiveness analysis 44
Results 45
Discussion 49
Strengths 49
Limitations 52
Conclusions 52

Chapter 5 Qualitative study 53

Introduction 53
Methods 53
Recruitment and sampling 53
Interviews 53
Analysis of the interviews 54
Results 54
Preoperative life 56
The procedure 61
Recovery 65
Outcome of surgery 70
Discussion 74
Strengths and limitations of the qualitative study 74
Summary of the findings and implications 75

Chapter 6 Discussion and conclusions 77

Summary and interpretation of main findings 77
Primary outcomes 77
Secondary outcomes 77
Economic evaluation 79
Qualitative study 80
Strengths and limitations 81
Overall evidence and generalisability 82
Recommendations for research 83
Implications for health care 83

viii
NIHR Journals Library www.journalslibrary.nihr.ac.uk
 DOI: 10.3310/hta24410 HEALTH TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT 2020 VOL. 24 NO. 41

Acknowledgements 85

References 89

Appendix 1 Patient- and productivity-related resource use 93

Appendix 2 Qualitative interview schedule 95

© Queen’s Printer and Controller of HMSO 2020. This work was produced by Worthington et al. under the terms of a commissioning contract issued by the Secretary of State for
Health and Social Care. This issue may be freely reproduced for the purposes of private research and study and extracts (or indeed, the full report) may be included in professional
journals provided that suitable acknowledgement is made and the reproduction is not associated with any form of advertising. Applications for commercial reproduction should
ix
be addressed to: NIHR Journals Library, National Institute for Health Research, Evaluation, Trials and Studies Coordinating Centre, Alpha House, University of Southampton Science
Park, Southampton SO16 7NS, UK.
 DOI: 10.3310/hta24410 HEALTH TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT 2020 VOL. 24 NO. 41

List of tables
TABLE 1 Data collection within the UNBLOCS trial 10

TABLE 2 Dates of acceptance for questionnaires, flow rates and blood samples 10

TABLE 3 Dichotomous variables for ICIQ-MLUTS and ICIQ-MLUTSsex 12

TABLE 4 Concomitant procedures 17

TABLE 5 Baseline sociodemographic characteristics of eligible patients who

underwent randomisation 18

TABLE 6 Baseline clinical characteristics of eligible patients who underwent

randomisation 18

TABLE 7 Baseline patient-reported outcome measures of eligible patients who

underwent randomisation 19

TABLE 8 Baseline characteristics of those patients assessed in the primary analysis

and those patients who withdrew or were lost to follow-up 20

TABLE 9 Data quality in the UNBLOCS trial 21

TABLE 10 Reasons for withdrawal 21

TABLE 11 Reasons for change in treatment 22

TABLE 12 Primary analysis results 25

TABLE 13 Perioperative surgical outcomes 26

TABLE 14 Additional surgical outcomes 27

TABLE 15 Postoperative surgical complications (Clavien–Dindo scores per patient) 27

TABLE 16 Total number of complications during the 12-month period 29

TABLE 17 Secondary outcome: urinary and sexual symptoms 30

TABLE 18 Secondary outcome: satisfaction with treatment 30

TABLE 19 Secondary outcome: quality-of-life questionnaire 31

TABLE 20 Subgroup analyses: IPSS at 12 months 32

TABLE 21 Subgroup analyses: Qmax at 12 months 32

TABLE 22 Sensitivity analyses: IPSS and Qmax – difference between arms 34

TABLE 23 Sensitivity analyses: ThuVARP compared with monopolar and bipolar TURP 36

© Queen’s Printer and Controller of HMSO 2020. This work was produced by Worthington et al. under the terms of a commissioning contract issued by the Secretary of State for
Health and Social Care. This issue may be freely reproduced for the purposes of private research and study and extracts (or indeed, the full report) may be included in professional
journals provided that suitable acknowledgement is made and the reproduction is not associated with any form of advertising. Applications for commercial reproduction should
xi
be addressed to: NIHR Journals Library, National Institute for Health Research, Evaluation, Trials and Studies Coordinating Centre, Alpha House, University of Southampton Science
Park, Southampton SO16 7NS, UK.
 LIST OF TABLES

TABLE 24 Sensitivity analyses: monopolar vs. bipolar TURP 36

TABLE 25 Pathological findings (intention to treat) 37

TABLE 26 Pathological findings (treatment received) 37

TABLE 27 Serious adverse events by randomisation arm (intention to treat) 38

TABLE 28 Serious adverse events by treatment received 38

TABLE 29 Serious adverse event relationship to treatment by treatment received 38

TABLE 30 Resources collected and their valuation 42

TABLE 31 Resource use and costs by category 46

TABLE 32 Mean unadjusted EQ-5D-5L domain scores by trial arm 48

TABLE 33 Cost–consequences results 48

TABLE 34 Sensitivity analyses 50

TABLE 35 Key topic areas explored following ThuVARP or TURP 54

TABLE 36 Characteristics of participants in the qualitative study 55

TABLE 37 Resource use and costs from the patient and societal perspective 94

xii
NIHR Journals Library www.journalslibrary.nihr.ac.uk
 DOI: 10.3310/hta24410 HEALTH TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT 2020 VOL. 24 NO. 41

List of figures
FIGURE 1 The UNBLOCS trial CONSORT flow chart 16

FIGURE 2 Recruitment 17

FIGURE 3 Distribution of IPSS at 12 months for (a) ThuVARP; and (b) TURP 23

FIGURE 4 Box plot of IPSS for TURP vs. ThuVARP 23

FIGURE 5 Distribution of Qmax values at 12 months for (a) ThuVARP; and (b) TURP 24

FIGURE 6 Box plot of Qmax values for TURP vs. ThuVARP 24

FIGURE 7 Testing equivalence for IPSS 33

FIGURE 8 Testing equivalence for Qmax levels 35

FIGURE 9 Monopolar and bipolar TURP use across the trial centres 35

FIGURE 10 Cost-effectiveness acceptability curves from (a) an NHS secondary care

perspective; and (b) an NHS perspective 49

FIGURE 11 Conceptual framework of qualitative findings from participants in the

UNBLOCS trial 55

FIGURE 12 Participants’ descriptions of commonly occurring LUTS 56

© Queen’s Printer and Controller of HMSO 2020. This work was produced by Worthington et al. under the terms of a commissioning contract issued by the Secretary of State for
Health and Social Care. This issue may be freely reproduced for the purposes of private research and study and extracts (or indeed, the full report) may be included in professional
journals provided that suitable acknowledgement is made and the reproduction is not associated with any form of advertising. Applications for commercial reproduction should
xiii
be addressed to: NIHR Journals Library, National Institute for Health Research, Evaluation, Trials and Studies Coordinating Centre, Alpha House, University of Southampton Science
Park, Southampton SO16 7NS, UK.
 DOI: 10.3310/hta24410 HEALTH TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT 2020 VOL. 24 NO. 41

List of abbreviations

BPO benign prostatic obstruction ICIQ-satisfaction International Consultation on

Incontinence Questionnaire –
CACE complier average causal effect
Satisfaction
CI confidence interval
IIEF-5 International Index of Erectile
CONSORT Consolidated Standards of Function-5
Reporting Trials
INMB incremental net monetary
CRF case report form benefit
EAU European Association of IPSS International Prostate Symptom
Urology Score
EQ-5D-5L EuroQol-5 Dimensions, IQR interquartile range
five-level version
LUTS lower urinary tract symptoms
GP general practitioner
NICE National Institute for Health
HoLEP holmium laser enucleation of and Care Excellence
the prostate
OPCS-4 OPCS Classification of
HRG Healthcare Resource Group Interventions and Procedures
ICD-10 International Classification of PIN prostatic intraepithelial neoplasia
Diseases, Tenth Revision PLICS hospital patient-linked
ICIQ-LUTSqol International Consultation on information costing system
Incontinence Questionnaire – QALY quality-adjusted life-year
Lower Urinary Tract Symptoms
Quality of Life Qmax maximum urine flow rate

ICIQ-MLUTS International Consultation on RCT randomised controlled trial

Incontinence Questionnaire – SD standard deviation
Male Lower Urinary Tract
Symptoms ThuVARP thulium laser transurethral
vaporesection of the prostate
ICIQ-MLUTSsex International Consultation on
Incontinence Questionnaire – TURP transurethral resection of the
Male Sexual Matters associated prostate
with Lower Urinary Tract UNBLOCS UriNary oBstruction relieved by
Symptoms Laser Or Conventional Surgery

© Queen’s Printer and Controller of HMSO 2020. This work was produced by Worthington et al. under the terms of a commissioning contract issued by the Secretary of State for
Health and Social Care. This issue may be freely reproduced for the purposes of private research and study and extracts (or indeed, the full report) may be included in professional
journals provided that suitable acknowledgement is made and the reproduction is not associated with any form of advertising. Applications for commercial reproduction should
xv
be addressed to: NIHR Journals Library, National Institute for Health Research, Evaluation, Trials and Studies Coordinating Centre, Alpha House, University of Southampton Science
Park, Southampton SO16 7NS, UK.
 DOI: 10.3310/hta24410 HEALTH TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT 2020 VOL. 24 NO. 41

Plain English summary

A n enlarged prostate can make it difficult, or even impossible, for a man to pass urine by blocking the
urine flow from the bladder. This can cause significant problems, and 25,000 men in the UK each year
are treated with an operation to relieve their symptoms.

The standard operation [transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP)], which uses electricity to shave off
the enlarged prostate, is successful, but it can have some complications. There is some evidence to suggest
that laser surgery can lead to less blood loss and a shorter stay in hospital, but laser operations can be
difficult for surgeons to carry out. This trial has looked at a procedure using a new type of laser called
thulium, which uses a very similar surgical technique to TURP and has shown promising results so far.

A total of 410 men needing a prostate operation received either TURP or a laser operation. Participants
were unaware of which operation they received until the end of the study to ensure a fair comparison.
Seven hospitals across the UK were involved over 4 years. The trial mainly assessed the benefits of the
operations using a urinary symptom questionnaire completed by participants, and by measuring the speed
of passing urine after surgery.

Overall, both procedures achieved positive results, and participants expressed high levels of satisfaction with
the outcomes. Participants who had either operation reported a similar improvement in urinary symptoms in
their questionnaires. However, although both operations did a good job of improving the speed of passing
urine, TURP was better. Participants experienced few complications, and the complications that did occur
were similar after both operations, including levels of bleeding and time spent in hospital. The cost of the
two operations to the NHS was also similar. Overall, we concluded that both operations are suitable for
patients with prostate enlargement, with TURP showing some minor additional benefits.

© Queen’s Printer and Controller of HMSO 2020. This work was produced by Worthington et al. under the terms of a commissioning contract issued by the Secretary of State for
Health and Social Care. This issue may be freely reproduced for the purposes of private research and study and extracts (or indeed, the full report) may be included in professional
journals provided that suitable acknowledgement is made and the reproduction is not associated with any form of advertising. Applications for commercial reproduction should
xvii
be addressed to: NIHR Journals Library, National Institute for Health Research, Evaluation, Trials and Studies Coordinating Centre, Alpha House, University of Southampton Science
Park, Southampton SO16 7NS, UK.
 DOI: 10.3310/hta24410 HEALTH TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT 2020 VOL. 24 NO. 41

Scientific summary

Background

Transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP) is the gold-standard operation for men with benign prostate
obstruction (BPO). Although it is generally a successful procedure, it is associated with small but significant
risks of both morbidity and mortality. Thulium laser transurethral vaporesection of the prostate (ThuVARP)
is a new laser procedure in which the prostate is vaporised and resected using a surgical technique similar
to TURP. The small number of published data suggest that ThuVARP may have certain advantages over
TURP, but the evidence base is limited.

Objectives

The key aim of this research was to determine whether ThuVARP is equivalent to TURP in men with BPO
treated in the NHS in terms of a patient-reported symptom severity score [International Prostate Symptom
Score (IPSS)] and the clinical measure of maximum urine flow rate (Qmax) 12 months after surgery. The
secondary aims were to compare the procedures in terms of cost-effectiveness, surgical outcomes, patient-
reported lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS), erectile function, quality of life, general health, satisfaction
and patient experience.

Methods

Design
This was a multicentre, pragmatic, randomised controlled parallel-group trial, including an embedded
qualitative study and a within-trial economic evaluation from a NHS secondary care and a NHS perspective.

Setting
Participants were recruited and underwent operations at seven UK centres: four university teaching hospitals
and three district general hospitals.

Participants
Participants were men who were suitable for TURP and either in urinary retention or with bothersome LUTS
secondary to BPO. Men were excluded if they had neurogenic LUTS, previous prostate or urethral surgery,
prostate cancer, or a prostate-specific antigen outside the normal age-related range without having had
prostate cancer excluded, and if they were unable to give informed consent or complete trial documentation.

Interventions
Participants were randomised 1 : 1 to receive either TURP or ThuVARP. As this was a pragmatic trial,
centres continued to use their usual practices, for example in how they undertook the TURP procedure
(e.g. use of monopolar or bipolar TURP). All trial surgeons underwent training in the ThuVARP technique.
Participants were blinded to which procedure they received during their involvement in the trial.

Outcome measures
The two key co-primary outcomes were the patient-reported IPSS and the clinical measure of Qmax.
The key secondary outcomes were surgical complications, length of hospital stay and blood transfusion
rates, cost-effectiveness, patient-reported LUTS, sexual symptoms, quality of life, general health,
satisfaction and patients’ experiences obtained using structured interviews.

© Queen’s Printer and Controller of HMSO 2020. This work was produced by Worthington et al. under the terms of a commissioning contract issued by the Secretary of State for
Health and Social Care. This issue may be freely reproduced for the purposes of private research and study and extracts (or indeed, the full report) may be included in professional
journals provided that suitable acknowledgement is made and the reproduction is not associated with any form of advertising. Applications for commercial reproduction should
xix
be addressed to: NIHR Journals Library, National Institute for Health Research, Evaluation, Trials and Studies Coordinating Centre, Alpha House, University of Southampton Science
Park, Southampton SO16 7NS, UK.
 SCIENTIFIC SUMMARY

Follow-up was at 6 weeks and 3 and 12 months after surgery for IPSS, and at 3 and 12 months for
Qmax, with 12 months being the primary end point. Other patient-reported outcomes, including the
EuroQol-5-dimensions, five-level version (EQ-5D-5L), were also collected at 6 weeks, 3 months and
12 months after surgery. Resource use was collected for the 12 months following surgery using trial case
report forms, hospital patient-linked information costing systems and patient-completed questionnaires.

Results

A total of 410 patients were randomised: 205 in each surgical arm. Primary IPSS outcome data were available
for 151 (74%) and 159 (78%) participants and primary Qmax data were available for 168 (82%) and 176
(86%) participants in the TURP and ThuVARP arms, respectively. In terms of the primary outcomes, both arms
showed significant improvements in both IPSS and Qmax. The two procedures were demonstrated to be
equivalent in terms of the IPSS; participants in the ThuVARP arm had a mean IPSS of 6.43 and those patients in
the TURP arm had a mean IPSS of 6.26 points [adjusted mean difference 0.28 higher in ThuVARP (favouring
TURP), 95% confidence interval (CI) –0.92 to 1.49]. However, the two procedures were not equivalent in terms
of Qmax, with TURP deemed superior. Participants in the ThuVARP arm had a mean Qmax of 20 ml per second,
whereas those patients in the TURP arm had a mean Qmax of 23 ml per second at 12 months post surgery
[adjusted mean difference of 3.12 ml per second in favour of TURP, 95% CI 0.45 to 5.79 ml per second]. These
conclusions were strengthened by various sensitivity analyses that were in agreement with the conclusions,
including a per-protocol and a complier average causal effect analysis. There was no evidence to suggest that
subgroup interactions were present; however, the beneficial effect of TURP in terms of Qmax was strengthened
in younger men (i.e. those aged < 70 years) and in those diagnosed with LUTS rather than urinary retention.

Other surgical outcomes were found to be similar between the arms. No difference was detected in the
frequency or severity of surgical complications, or in the rate of blood transfusions, change in haemoglobin
(indicating blood loss) or serum sodium (indicating absorption of irrigation fluid) postoperatively. The length
of hospital stay was also similar after both procedures.

No obvious differences in individual patient-reported urinary symptoms were seen between the arms,
with the exception of some evidence to indicate a potential reduction in nocturia incidence at 12 months
post surgery in the TURP arm [p = 0.102 when treated as binary (getting up to urinate more than once
per night) and p = 0.031 when treated as ordinal]. There was no apparent difference in sexual symptoms
experienced by participants post surgery between the two arms, or in participants’ quality of life or
satisfaction with treatment, which were high.

The high satisfaction with treatment was mirrored in the qualitative study. Interviews were undertaken
with 37 men using an open-ended interview schedule until data saturation was achieved and no new
themes were emerging. The findings confirmed that both procedures resulted in a fairly equal patient
experience as men reported similar journeys of recovery and outcomes. As the majority of participants
specified that their expectations regarding outcomes had been met, it appeared that most were generally
satisfied with the outcomes and the extent to which their initial symptoms had been alleviated. The
provision of information was highlighted as a key requirement in order to understand the recovery period
fully. The need to be aware of concerns regarding sexual matters when undergoing these procedures was
also highlighted. Concerns were raised regarding the ability to conduct a satisfactory sex life, which was
perceived to be related to, and to predate, surgery.

When the number of men diagnosed with prostate cancer in each arm from routine histology was
reviewed, this was found to be greater in the TURP arm than in the ThuVARP arm. Following the procedure,
193 participants per arm had a prostate histology available. In the TURP arm 13% of participants were
diagnosed with prostate cancer, compared with only 5% in the ThuVARP arm (odds ratio 0.35, 95% CI
0.16 to 0.75). The weight of resected prostate tissue was also much lower in the ThuVARP arm (difference
in means –15.4 ml, 95% CI –19.3 to –11.5 ml) as ThuVARP not only resects but also vaporises tissue.

xx
NIHR Journals Library www.journalslibrary.nihr.ac.uk
 DOI: 10.3310/hta24410 HEALTH TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT 2020 VOL. 24 NO. 41

The number of participants undergoing the procedure to which they had been randomised differed:
98% of participants in the TURP arm received their randomised procedure, compared with only 75% in the
ThuVARP arm. Among the 51 participants who did not receive ThuVARP as randomised, the most common
reason for this (n = 18) was equipment failure, which led to either a change to TURP immediately or a
conversion mid-procedure. In addition, large prostate size resulted in nine of these conversions to TURP.

In terms of the health economic analysis, the total adjusted mean secondary care NHS cost in the ThuVARP
arm was slightly higher (£4253) than in the TURP arm (£4244), but with a difference of only £9 (95% CI
–£359 to £376) this was consistent with chance. This difference reduced to £4 (95% CI –£367 to £375)
when all NHS costs were included. The ThuVARP operation took, on average, 21 minutes longer than the
TURP procedure. The higher cost of the time in theatre for ThuVARP is, to some extent, offset by the
higher cost of recovery in the TURP arm.

The adjusted mean differences between the arms were similar in terms of quality-adjusted life-years
(QALYs) (0.01 favouring TURP, 95% CI –0.04 to 0.01), equivalent to an extra 4 days of perfect health.
The TURP arm weakly dominates the ThuVARP arm, and at a willingness to pay threshold of £20,000 per
QALY, there is only a 24% probability that ThuVARP is more cost-effective than TURP.

Strengths and limitations

The main strengths of this study were recruiting to the target sample size in a multicentre study, successful
blinding of participants in a surgical trial, inclusion of patients presenting with urinary retention and
exceptional follow-up rates, resulting in informative and robust conclusions.

Limitations included the reporting of complications, which were recorded according to prespecified categories;
those complications reported as free text, and thus not prespecified, were excluded as a result of variable
reporting. Serious adverse events are reported separately. It was also not possible to collect Qmax and IPSS
data for those participants with indwelling catheters, making adjustment for baseline difficult. In addition,
a pragmatic approach was taken to the measurement of prostate size, which was carried out by digital rectal
examination at the start of surgery rather than by ultrasound scanning or magnetic resonance imaging, to
adhere to NHS usual practice. A statistical limitation was that the data collected at 3 months could not be
utilised in the imputation model, as originally planned, owing to modelling issues (collinearity and lack
of convergence).

Conclusions

Overall, the outcomes for both procedures were positive, with clinical improvements in IPSS and Qmax,
as well as positive reporting of quality of life after the operation, and satisfaction with surgery. Although
ThuVARP was demonstrated to be equivalent to TURP in terms of IPSS, the study was unable to demonstrate
equivalence in Qmax between the surgical procedures, with TURP shown to be superior. However, the
improvement in Qmax in both arms would be considered clinically successful. A reduction in the detection
of prostate cancer from routine histology was also indicated in the ThuVARP arm. Length of stay, which was
anticipated to be a key benefit for ThuVARP, was found to be equal to TURP in this trial. There was weak
evidence for cost-effectiveness for the TURP arm, but this was very marginal. The difference in operative time
between ThuVARP and TURP should be noted, with ThuVARP procedures taking an additional 21 minutes
on average, which has implications for patients because of the longer period under anaesthetic, and for NHS
service delivery. Overall, both ThuVARP and TURP were effective procedures for BPO, with minor benefits
favouring TURP, suggesting that it may remain appropriate that new alternative treatments continue to be
compared with TURP.

© Queen’s Printer and Controller of HMSO 2020. This work was produced by Worthington et al. under the terms of a commissioning contract issued by the Secretary of State for
Health and Social Care. This issue may be freely reproduced for the purposes of private research and study and extracts (or indeed, the full report) may be included in professional
journals provided that suitable acknowledgement is made and the reproduction is not associated with any form of advertising. Applications for commercial reproduction should
xxi
be addressed to: NIHR Journals Library, National Institute for Health Research, Evaluation, Trials and Studies Coordinating Centre, Alpha House, University of Southampton Science
Park, Southampton SO16 7NS, UK.
 SCIENTIFIC SUMMARY

Future work

Longer-term follow-up of trial participants would demonstrate whether or not there is any sustained
difference between the arms in reoperation rates over time. This would provide a more comprehensive
perspective on whether or not the lower Qmax achieved by ThuVARP has any relevance in terms of
requiring further future interventions for LUTS, especially at an earlier time span than TURP. Also of interest
would be future research into the comparative effectiveness of ThuVARP and TURP in large prostates of
> 80–100 ml, as would a comparison between the enucleation procedures of thulium and holmium lasers.

Trial registration

The trial is registered as ISRCTN00788389.

Funding

This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment
programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 24, No. 41. See the NIHR
Journals Library website for further project information.

xxii
NIHR Journals Library www.journalslibrary.nihr.ac.uk
 DOI: 10.3310/hta24410 HEALTH TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT 2020 VOL. 24 NO. 41

Chapter 1 Introduction
P arts of this chapter are reproduced from Worthington et al.1 This is an Open Access article distributed
in accordance with the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY 4.0) license, which permits
others to distribute, remix, adapt and build upon this work, for commercial use, provided the original work
is properly cited. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The text below includes minor additions
and formatting changes to the original text.

Parts of this chapter are reproduced from Hashim et al.2 This is an Open Access article distributed in
accordance with the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY 4.0) license, which permits others
to distribute, remix, adapt and build upon this work, for commercial use, provided the original work is
properly cited. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The text below includes minor additions
and formatting changes to the original text.

Scientific background and review of current literature

The prostate gland sits at the exit of the bladder like a collar, and as men get older their prostates enlarge,
causing benign prostatic enlargement and benign prostatic obstruction (BPO). The resulting urethral
obstruction can cause either urinary retention (the inability to pass urine) or bothersome voiding lower
urinary tract symptoms (LUTS) secondary to BPO, such as slow and intermittent urinary stream. These
conditions can severely affect a man’s quality of life, resulting in worsening physical and social functioning,
vitality and mental health.3 Bothersome LUTS secondary to BPO with an International Prostate Symptom
Score (IPSS) of ≥ 11 points and a maximum urine flow rate (Qmax) of < 15 ml/second affects 2.5 million men
aged 40–79 years in the UK, with 44,000 new cases diagnosed annually.4 If medical therapy fails to improve
LUTS, men often request surgery to reduce these. The aim of the surgery is to relieve the obstruction to allow
men to void better, and to prevent the complications associated with BPO. These can include renal failure,
urinary tract infections and bladder stones, as well as the persistence of bothersome LUTS.

Around 25,000 prostate operations are performed annually in the UK to relieve BPO. Transurethral resection
of the prostate (TURP), the gold-standard operation, accounts for around 80% of these. TURP has been
used widely for the past 40 years, and, although generally a successful procedure, it is associated with small
but significant risks. It has a 30-day mortality rate of 0.3%, as well as a range of morbidities, including
transurethral resection (TUR) syndrome (1%), which is due to the absorption of irrigating fluid leading to
confusion and collapse; haemorrhage during the operation (transfusion rate 5%); and subsequent urinary
tract infections (up to 20%).5 These morbidities result in delayed discharge and increased re-admissions,
increased primary care resource utilisation, considerable distress to patients and additional costs to the NHS.1

The well-known risks of both mortality and morbidity from TURP have meant that many alternatives have
been assessed. Various laser alternatives have been marketed, but uptake has been slow, owing in part to a
long learning curve, or to inferior performance in terms of clinical outcomes. However, although the uptake
of laser techniques has been slow historically, there does seems to have been a significant increase over
the past few years. Hospital Episode Statistics data do not provide a clear indication of the proportion of
procedures carried out using laser techniques as there is variation and overlap in coding. Considering only
operations specifically coded as laser cases [OPCS Classification of Interventions and Procedures (OPCS-4)
M65.46], the number increased in England by 45% from 2341 in 2012/13 to 3387 in 2016/17. However,
this is still a relatively small proportion (≈14%) of the total number of cases of endoscopic resection of
the prostate, which has remained reasonably constant at around 25,000. This is despite the commonly
accepted advantages of laser prostatectomy, including lower risk of perioperative complications, shorter
catheterisation time and reduced hospital stay.7

© Queen’s Printer and Controller of HMSO 2020. This work was produced by Worthington et al. under the terms of a commissioning contract issued by the Secretary of State for
Health and Social Care. This issue may be freely reproduced for the purposes of private research and study and extracts (or indeed, the full report) may be included in professional
journals provided that suitable acknowledgement is made and the reproduction is not associated with any form of advertising. Applications for commercial reproduction should
1
be addressed to: NIHR Journals Library, National Institute for Health Research, Evaluation, Trials and Studies Coordinating Centre, Alpha House, University of Southampton Science
Park, Southampton SO16 7NS, UK.
 INTRODUCTION

National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) clinical guidelines 978 currently recommend
offering TURP or holmium laser enucleation of the prostate (HoLEP) as BPO surgery. However, since the
last update to the guidelines, in 2016 NICE recommended the use of the GreenLight XPSTM Laser Therapy
System (Boston Scientific Corporation, Marlborough, MA, USA) for certain patients.9 According to the
current guidelines, any other lasers should be subject to a clinical trial before being used widely.

The current form of the HoLEP technique was originally described by Gilling et al.10 in 1998. In the HoLEP
procedure, the holmium laser is used to remove the prostatic lobes, which are then morcellated in the bladder
before being removed. Although HoLEP is a long-established, effective procedure (recommended by NICE since
200311), with the key benefit that it can be undertaken regardless of prostate size, it has a recognised limitation
in that it has a long learning curve, which reduces its generalisability. NICE8 recommends that this procedure be
performed only in centres specialising in the technique or that have mentorship arrangements in place.

The GreenLight XPS laser involves the photoselective vaporisation of prostatic tissue. NICE has recommended
it only since 2016 in its medical technologies guidance 29.9 Currently NICE has deemed that there is
insufficient evidence to recommend its use in high-risk patients, such as those with an increased risk of
bleeding, prostates larger than 100 ml, or urinary retention. The NICE review concludes that the GreenLight
XPS is at least as effective as TURP but can more often be carried out as a day-case procedure, given
appropriate service redesign.

This study has evaluated a new laser technique called thulium laser transurethral vaporesection of the
prostate (ThuVARP). Thulium is a continuous laser technology and has a tunable wavelength of between
1.75 and 2.22 µm, which is similar to that of holmium technology.12 However, holmium is pulsed, making
vaporesection time-consuming. This thulium laser technique was chosen for evaluation in this trial because
it vaporises and resects the prostate, thereby using a surgical technique similar to TURP, enabling a short
learning curve and meaning that it can be quickly put into widespread use.

The thulium laser was first made available in the UK in 2004 and it had been compared with TURP in one
randomised controlled trial (RCT) in China at the time that the UNBLOCS trial was funded.13 Based on this
RCT and on one non-randomised prospective controlled trial in patients with small and medium-sized
prostates,14 the European Association of Urology (EAU) guidelines on laser technologies in 2012 stated
that ThuVARP showed efficacy equivalent to that of TURP.15 However, the thulium patients had shorter
catheterisation and hospitalisation times and fewer adverse events than patients undergoing TURP
(intraoperative and postoperative bleeding), with level 1b evidence [individual RCTs conducted with narrow
confidence intervals (CIs)].1 Subsequent EAU guidelines on the treatment of non-neurogenic male LUTS,
published in 2017, reviewed the 4-year follow-up of the RCT conducted in China,16 as well as other, new
studies. The guidelines concluded that thulium enucleation may be an alternative to TURP and HoLEP in
men with moderate to severe LUTS, leading to both immediate and medium-term objective and subjective
improvements (level of evidence 1b).

Zhang et al.17 reported equal outcomes for ThuVARP and HoLEP in treatment of urinary tract symptoms,
and similar efficacy and safety. ThuVARP was statistically superior to HoLEP in blood loss and inferior to
HoLEP in operation time; however, this was clinically negligible.

In its guidelines on male LUTS (updated in 2015),8 NICE stated that the evidence base was inadequate to
allow clear guidance in terms of the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of laser vaporesection
techniques. NICE identified that research in this area, in the form of a RCT, would help to inform future
guidance on the use of laser vaporesection techniques in men with LUTS or urinary retention who
need surgery.1

2
NIHR Journals Library www.journalslibrary.nihr.ac.uk
 DOI: 10.3310/hta24410 HEALTH TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT 2020 VOL. 24 NO. 41

Rationale for the trial

The general population has an increased life expectancy, resulting in an ageing population. As BPO is a
disease seen in older men, the number of patients with the condition is expected to grow by almost
50% by the year 2025, increasing the need for BPO surgery.4 Furthermore, the age of men undergoing
the operation is increasing (41% of the TURP operations in 2016–17 were carried out on patients aged
> 75 years); therefore, the risks of surgery associated with TURP will continue to grow. There is, therefore,
sustained interest in the condition and an increasing need to find safer techniques than TURP. The potential
advantages of reduced blood loss, shorter hospital stay and earlier return to normal activities make laser
vaporesection techniques attractive to both patients and health-care providers. A potential advantage of
ThuVARP is that it would allow urologists to operate on a wider range of men, including those men who
are more frail and older, but with less risk. However, there is uncertainty about the extent of improvement
to symptoms and quality of life in the short and longer term, which this trial addresses, and the procedure
has not yet been widely taken up across the UK.

An additional reason for the early evaluation of ThuVARP is the promise it offers to convert BPO surgery
from an inpatient operation to a day-case procedure. Shortened stay is becoming more important to the
NHS because of the growing cost of inpatient beds, a shortage of inpatient beds owing to an ageing and
increasingly comorbid population, and the risk that longer hospital stays present for these patients, for
example of hospital-acquired infections.

In summary, although there has been little existing work on ThuVARP, the promising initial evidence from
one RCT suggested that ThuVARP has equivalent clinical effectiveness to TURP, although this was in a
single centre in China. Our randomised study was designed to provide the high-quality evidence, in a NHS
setting with a range of patient-reported, clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness outcomes, to underpin
and inform future NICE guidance.1

Study aims and objectives

The key aim of the UNBLOCS (UriNary oBstruction relieved by Laser Or Conventional Surgery) trial was to
determine whether or not ThuVARP is equivalent to TURP in men with BPO treated in the NHS in terms of
a patient-reported symptom severity score (IPSS) and the clinical measure of Qmax.

The following primary question was addressed:

l What is the relative clinical effectiveness of ThuVARP and TURP in improving patient-reported LUTS as
measured by the IPSS patient-reported questionnaire, and the objective measure of maximum urine
flow rate (Qmax), 12 months after surgery?

The secondary research questions were:

1. How do the two procedures compare in terms of perioperative outcomes?

2. What is the cost-effectiveness of ThuVARP compared with that of TURP in terms of quality-adjusted-life-
years (QALYs: the primary economic outcome), IPSS and Qmax?
3. What is the comparative impact of each treatment on patient-reported LUTS, erectile function, quality
of life and general health?
4. What is the comparative satisfaction of men with each type of surgery?
5. What is the comparative effectiveness of these operations in men who present with LUTS as opposed to
men who present with urinary retention?
6. What are men’s experiences of both procedures, including those men presenting with LUTS and those
men presenting with urinary retention?

© Queen’s Printer and Controller of HMSO 2020. This work was produced by Worthington et al. under the terms of a commissioning contract issued by the Secretary of State for
Health and Social Care. This issue may be freely reproduced for the purposes of private research and study and extracts (or indeed, the full report) may be included in professional
journals provided that suitable acknowledgement is made and the reproduction is not associated with any form of advertising. Applications for commercial reproduction should
3
be addressed to: NIHR Journals Library, National Institute for Health Research, Evaluation, Trials and Studies Coordinating Centre, Alpha House, University of Southampton Science
Park, Southampton SO16 7NS, UK.
 DOI: 10.3310/hta24410 HEALTH TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT 2020 VOL. 24 NO. 41

Chapter 2 Methods
P arts of this chapter are reproduced from Worthington et al.1 This is an Open Access article distributed
in accordance with the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY 4.0) license, which permits
others to distribute, remix, adapt and build upon this work, for commercial use, provided the original work
is properly cited. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The text below includes minor additions
and formatting changes to the original text.

Parts of this chapter are reproduced from Hashim et al.2 This is an Open Access article distributed in
accordance with the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY 4.0) license, which permits others
to distribute, remix, adapt and build upon this work, for commercial use, provided the original work is
properly cited. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The text below includes minor additions
and formatting changes to the original text.

Trial design
The UNBLOCS trial is a multicentre, pragmatic, randomised controlled, parallel-group trial of ThuVARP
versus standard TURP. The trial was conducted in four university teaching hospitals and three district general
hospitals in the UK, and recruited patients from June 2014 to December 2016. Men with BPO who were
suitable for surgery were randomised to one of the two trial surgical treatment arms. The main aim of the
study was to establish equivalence in clinical improvement, 12 months after the two surgical techniques.
Both clinical and patient-reported outcomes were used to demonstrate equivalence: Qmax and IPSS.

Ethics approval and research governance

Approval from the National Research Ethics Service Committee South Central – Hampshire B Ethics Committee
(13/SC/0644) was received on 15 January 2014 and applied to all NHS sites who took part in the study.

The trial is registered at the International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial Number registry with the
reference ISRCTN00788389.

All patients provided their written informed consent to participate before entering the study. Consent was
taken by the consultant, a dedicated research nurse or a designated team member. All adverse events
were recorded, and serious adverse events that were categorised as unexpected and related were notified
to the sponsor and Research Ethics Committee within 15 days.

A number of minor protocol changes were made during the trial.1 The secondary outcome measures were
reviewed and updated to include:

l post-void residual urine at 12 months post surgery

l change in haemoglobin and serum sodium levels postoperatively as measures of blood loss and the
absorption of irrigation fluid
l postoperative catheterisation time.

These measures were added to broaden the picture of surgical outcomes reported and were prespecified in
the statistical analysis plan.18 The protocol and study documentation were also updated during the trial to
make clarifications to study procedures, particularly for catheterised participants, and improve the formatting
of health economic questionnaires, as well as making other adjustments to procedures to improve
questionnaire return, and the addition of one other study site.

© Queen’s Printer and Controller of HMSO 2020. This work was produced by Worthington et al. under the terms of a commissioning contract issued by the Secretary of State for
Health and Social Care. This issue may be freely reproduced for the purposes of private research and study and extracts (or indeed, the full report) may be included in professional
journals provided that suitable acknowledgement is made and the reproduction is not associated with any form of advertising. Applications for commercial reproduction should
5
be addressed to: NIHR Journals Library, National Institute for Health Research, Evaluation, Trials and Studies Coordinating Centre, Alpha House, University of Southampton Science
Park, Southampton SO16 7NS, UK.
 METHODS

Participants

Patients presenting with either bothersome LUTS or urinary retention (secondary to BPO), who were suitable
for TURP surgery, were recruited to the trial. Patients were excluded if they met any of the following criteria:

l had neurogenic LUTS

l had a prostate cancer diagnosis, or a prostate-specific antigen test outside the normal range without
prostate cancer excluded
l had undergone previous prostate or urethral surgery
l were unable to give informed consent or complete trial documentation.

Interventions
Patients were randomised in a 1 : 1 ratio to receive either TURP or ThuVARP. ThuVARP uses laser
technology to vaporise and resect the prostate, whereas TURP uses an electric current to resect the
prostate. The procedures are otherwise similar in that a cystoscope (telescope) goes through the urethra
into the bladder and irrigation fluid is used (saline or glycine). The prostate is resected in small ‘chips’ and
these fragments are then evacuated with a device called an ‘Ellick’. The procedures are therefore minimally
invasive, with no incisions made in the skin, and utilise the urethral meatus to enter the body and reach
the prostate. During ThuVARP, everyone in the operating room needs to wear special goggles to protect
the eyes. In this trial, all surgeons conducting the procedures were at consultant level, and mentored by the
chief investigator or another principal investigator already certified as competent in the ThuVARP technique,
as described in Surgeon training in using the laser. Given the pragmatic nature of the study, centres
continued to follow their usual practices (e.g. monopolar or bipolar TURP). Concomitant procedures during
BPO surgery were allowed and details of these were recorded.

It should be noted that, owing to the trial design, surgeons needed to list patients as either day case
or inpatient before randomisation, which took place when the patient was already anaesthetised.
Two centres listed the majority of both their TURP and laser cases as day-case procedures, whereas the
remaining five sites listed all TURP and laser cases as inpatient procedures.

Surgeon training in using the laser

ThuVARP essentially uses the same surgical skill set as that for the TURP procedure, which is part of core
clinical practice for all urologists in the UK, including the trial surgeons who performed both procedures.
The experience of the chief investigator and of other urologists both in the UK and Europe indicates that a
maximum of 15 ThuVARP laser cases can assure a surgeon’s competence in the ThuVARP laser procedure.

All surgeons were mentored by the chief investigator or another principal investigator already certified
as competent in the ThuVARP technique, and certified by an independent assessor, using standard
criteria, before the official study commenced. First, surgeons observed the chief investigator or principal
investigator performing one or two procedures. The chief investigator or principal investigator then
observed the surgeons in each centre perform 2–5 procedures during site visits. The surgeons then
performed 5–10 procedures without supervision, following their own trust’s clinical governance and
audit guidelines. Competency was assessed by an independent assessor using the Intercollegiate Surgical
Curriculum Programme work-based assessment. If competency had not been achieved by this stage,
then further procedures would have been observed and further training would have been provided by
the chief investigator until the competency criteria were met. However, in practice, all surgeons were
signed off as competent at their first assessment.1

6
NIHR Journals Library www.journalslibrary.nihr.ac.uk
 DOI: 10.3310/hta24410 HEALTH TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT 2020 VOL. 24 NO. 41

Outcome measures

Primary outcome

International Prostate Symptom Score

The IPSS, a well-established and validated patient-reported outcome, was collected at 12 months. Participants
filled in a questionnaire concerning their LUTS, which produced a score from 0 to 35, with higher scores
indicating more severe symptoms.

Maximum urine flow rate (ml/second)

The Qmax was measured at participants’ 12-month follow-up assessment.

These measures were not collected if the participant had an indwelling catheter or was conducting
intermittent catheterisation, if he was unable to void.

These outcomes address the primary research question for the trial. The IPSS and Qmax are internationally
accepted, and are the most frequently used primary outcomes in BPO studies, thereby making results from
this study comparable with those from others. No core outcome measures for BPO are listed on the
COMET (Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials) Initiative website.

Secondary outcomes

Surgical complications
Any surgical complications were recorded and graded using the Clavien–Dindo classification.19 The number
of complications experienced per participant was explored, along with the worst event per participant.
There are five gradings:

1. deviation from normal postoperative course (e.g. analgesics) but not requiring pharmaceutical or
surgical intervention
2. requiring pharmaceutical treatment
3. requiring surgical, endoscopic or radiological intervention (3a, not under general anaesthetic; 3b, under
general anaesthetic)
4. life-threatening complication that requires intensive care
5. death of the participant.

Surgical outcomes
The length of hospital stay was measured as the number of days that the participant remained an
inpatient in hospital after the procedure. The binary blood transfusion rate, time to successful trial without
catheter, catheter use, post-void residual urine, blood loss during surgery (change in haemoglobin level)
and absorption of irrigation fluid (change in serum sodium) were also collected for each arm.

Trial participants were asked to complete the following instruments.

International Consultation on Incontinence Questionnaire – Male Lower Urinary

Tract Symptoms (ICIQ-MLUTS)
Both a voiding and incontinence score were generated from this questionnaire, as were daytime and
night-time voiding frequency data.

International Consultation on Incontinence Questionnaire – Male Sexual Matters

associated with Lower Urinary Tract Symptoms (ICIQ-MLUTSsex), and International
Index of Erectile Function-5 (IIEF-5)
An overall erectile dysfunction score was generated from the IIEF-5 questionnaire, and the ICIQ-MLUTSsex
questionnaire provided data on erection and ejaculation quality and how bothersome these aspects were
for the participant.

© Queen’s Printer and Controller of HMSO 2020. This work was produced by Worthington et al. under the terms of a commissioning contract issued by the Secretary of State for
Health and Social Care. This issue may be freely reproduced for the purposes of private research and study and extracts (or indeed, the full report) may be included in professional
journals provided that suitable acknowledgement is made and the reproduction is not associated with any form of advertising. Applications for commercial reproduction should
7
be addressed to: NIHR Journals Library, National Institute for Health Research, Evaluation, Trials and Studies Coordinating Centre, Alpha House, University of Southampton Science
Park, Southampton SO16 7NS, UK.
 METHODS

International Consultation on Incontinence Questionnaire – Lower Urinary Tract

Symptoms Quality of Life (ICIQ-LUTSqol)
This is a 20-item questionnaire about patients’ urinary problems, based on the King’s Health Questionnaire.
Subscores were created for role limitations, physical implications, social limitations, personal relationships,
emotions, sleep/energy and severity measures.

International Consultation on Incontinence Questionnaire – Satisfaction

(ICIQ-satisfaction)
This is a 20-item questionnaire on patients’ satisfaction with surgery. Overall satisfaction (0–10) and pain
suffered were explored.

Equivalence margin

In the light of the existing literature, TURP and ThuVARP were expected to be broadly similar in terms of
the primary outcomes, with potentially more differences in the secondary outcomes.13 Therefore, an
equivalence trial was chosen to allow greater focus on CIs, so that any clinically important difference
would not be ruled out.

The sample size calculation was based on the consideration that patients randomised to the ThuVARP arm
should have clinical outcomes that are equivalent to the outcomes of those patients who are randomised to
the TURP arm. For the primary outcomes, a difference in LUTS score of no more than 2.5 points on the IPSS
and of 4 ml/second in Qmax were hypothesised as suggesting equivalence. These were deemed appropriate
for the following reasons:

l The minimal clinically important difference for the IPSS is generally accepted to be 3 points;13,20
however, a previous trial of ThuVARP versus TURP used a minimal clinically important difference of
2 points. The team felt that a level between these would be more suitable.
l There is no minimal clinically important difference in flow rate that is accepted in the literature;
however, 2 ml/second has been quoted previously.8
l Discussions between clinicians, both in the trial team and with other urologists, led to an overall
consensus that differences of no more than 4 ml/second in Qmax and of 2.5 points on the IPSS would
be deemed clinically equivalent.

Sample size

This study is powered to establish equivalence in clinical improvement (measured with the IPSS and Qmax).
A Chinese trial13 observed differences of 0.4 ml/second (95% CI –2.0 to 2.8 ml/second) in Qmax and
0.4 points (95% CI –0.7 to 1.5 points) in the IPSS between ThuVARP and TURP. Variability (standard
deviation; SD) in data at 12 months was approximately 6.0 ml/second (Qmax) and 3.0 units (IPSS), but
previous trials of TURP have reported greater variability of around 9 ml/second (Qmax) and 5 units (IPSS).21,22

After considerable discussions between clinicians both inside and outside the trial, we specified differences
of 4 ml/second in Qmax and 2.5 units in IPSS as demonstrating equivalence. Equivalence studies often use
an alternative hypothesis of a difference of zero between treatments. However, the Chinese trial observed
differences of around 0.4 ml/second and 0.4 units for Qmax and IPSS, respectively. Incorporating these as
alternative hypotheses ensured adequate power to demonstrate equivalence if the treatments were indeed
similar but not identical.

Assuming SDs of 9 ml/second for Qmax and 5 units for IPSS, the target sample size needed to complete
the 12-month follow-up was 163 participants in each arm. Using nQuery Advisor (Statistical Solutions Ltd,
Cork, Ireland), this provided 85% power to demonstrate equivalence for Qmax and just over 90% power
for IPSS, at a two-sided alpha of 5%. Assuming 20% loss to follow-up following randomisation, it would

8
NIHR Journals Library www.journalslibrary.nihr.ac.uk
 DOI: 10.3310/hta24410 HEALTH TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT 2020 VOL. 24 NO. 41

be necessary to recruit 410 participants in total. This loss to follow-up was a conservative estimate from
our experience of previous trials.1

Randomisation and implementation

Men identified as eligible by a consultant or a research nurse were introduced to the trial at their clinical
appointment or over the telephone. Eligible men who consented to take part in the trial were referred for
LUTS surgery, if they had not already been listed. Randomisation took place in the anaesthetic room once
the patient had been anaesthetised. An automated web/telephone randomisation system, provided by the
Bristol Randomised Trials Collaboration, was used to randomly allocate patients to ThuVARP or TURP.
Randomisation was stratified by centre and patient eligibility classification at baseline (bothersome LUTS or
urinary retention). Patients were randomised in random blocks of two, four and six.

Blinding

One of the main strengths of this study was the successful blinding of participants, which is unusual for a
trial involving surgical procedures. As all surgeons were able to carry out ThuVARP and TURP, the surgeon
was blinded to the randomised allocation right up until the time of surgery. Following surgery, participants
were not informed of their allocation but they were aware that this information was available from their
general practitioner (GP) should they want to request it. Participants were asked at their 12-month follow-up
which treatment they thought they had received and whether or not they had become unblinded at any
point during the trial; these data were explored and utilised in a sensitivity analysis.

All investigators remained blinded to aggregate data throughout the recruitment and analysis of participants.
The senior statistician, Chris Metcalfe, had not seen any data while writing the statistical analysis plan and
remained blinded until the analysis had been finalised. The junior statistician (GY) had access to a random
small subset of participants (n = 20) while writing the analysis plan to allow her to become familiar with
the question and answer layouts. The protocol was written before recruitment ended and was published
in Trials.1 The statistical analysis plan18 was written and agreed by the trial team in October 2017, post
recruitment end but prior to any statistical analysis. The junior statistician became unblinded with full access
to the data on commencement of analysis in January 2018.

Data collection

Case report forms (CRFs) were collected at baseline, perioperatively, postoperatively, 3 months after
surgery and 12 months after surgery (Table 1). Questionnaires were given to participants to fill in at their
baseline clinic, by post at 6 weeks, and at their 3- and 12-month clinics.

Participants with indwelling catheters were unable to complete urine flow tests; participants using
intermittent catheterisation provided flow tests if they were able to void.

The trial team became aware that quite a few CRFs and questionnaires were being filled in much earlier or
later than their scheduled follow-up. Therefore, before analysis the team established a time frame for
which CRFs/questionnaires would be included in the analysis, as detailed in Table 2.

Patient and public involvement

We involved patient and public involvement representatives at all stages of the project. We discussed the
design of the trial with several men awaiting prostate surgery for BPO before we submitted the grant
proposal. Discussion subjects included the comparative nature of the trial and the acceptability of
randomisation, and the burden of the questionnaires.

© Queen’s Printer and Controller of HMSO 2020. This work was produced by Worthington et al. under the terms of a commissioning contract issued by the Secretary of State for
Health and Social Care. This issue may be freely reproduced for the purposes of private research and study and extracts (or indeed, the full report) may be included in professional
journals provided that suitable acknowledgement is made and the reproduction is not associated with any form of advertising. Applications for commercial reproduction should
9
be addressed to: NIHR Journals Library, National Institute for Health Research, Evaluation, Trials and Studies Coordinating Centre, Alpha House, University of Southampton Science
Park, Southampton SO16 7NS, UK.
 METHODS

TABLE 1 Data collection within the UNBLOCS trial

Study period

Data Enrolment Allocation Post allocation

Time point Baseline Day of surgery Postoperative 6 weeks 3 months 12 months

CRF ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
ICIQ bladder diary ✓ ✓ ✓
Qmax ✓ ✓ ✓
Post-void residual and voided volume ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
Full blood count ✓ ✓
Urea and electrolytes ✓ ✓
IPSS ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
ICIQ-MLUTS ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
ICIQ-MLUTSsex/IIEF-5 ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
ICIQ-LUTSqol ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
EQ-5D-5L ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
ICIQ-satisfaction ✓ ✓ ✓
EQ-5D-5L, EuroQol-5-dimensions, five-level version.

TABLE 2 Dates of acceptance for questionnaires, flow rates and blood samples

Date

Data collected Minimum Maximum

Baseline questionnaire – Day of surgery

Baseline flow rate – Day of surgery

Baseline blood sample 4 months before surgery Day of surgery

Post operative blood sample Day of surgery 2 weeks after surgery

6-week questionnaire Day of surgery 3 months after surgery

3-month questionnaire 2 months after surgery 6 months after surgery

3-month flow rate 2 months after surgery 6 months after surgery

12-month questionnaire 6 months after surgery 18 months after surgery

12-month flow rate 6 months after surgery 18 months after surgery

Throughout the trial, two patient representatives were members of the UNBLOCS Trial Steering Committee,
and they attended all meetings. They advised on recruitment and retention, provided feedback on patient-
facing materials and newsletters and were directly involved in creating a press release to raise the profile of
the trial.

Statistical methods

The main statistical analyses were prespecified using a statistical analysis plan.18 Final data analysis started
in January 2018 and finished in March 2018. Stata version 15.1 (StataCorp LP, College Station, TX, USA)
was used for all statistical and health economic analyses in this trial. Binary outcomes were presented as

10
NIHR Journals Library www.journalslibrary.nihr.ac.uk
 DOI: 10.3310/hta24410 HEALTH TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT 2020 VOL. 24 NO. 41

numbers and percentages, whereas continuous outcomes were presented as mean and SD or median and
interquartile range (IQR), as appropriate.

Primary analysis
Maximum urine flow rate was collected in clinic approximately 12 months after randomisation, while the IPSS
was patient reported and collected using questionnaires sent to the patient approximately 12 months after
randomisation. The primary analyses were conducted under the intention-to-treat principle using multivariable
linear regression and adjusting for the stratification variables used in randomisation (centre and baseline LUTS/
retention). The team originally planned to impute missing 12-month IPSS and Qmax data using data from
6 weeks and 3 months; however, the statistical nature of these data meant that this was not possible (see
Multiple imputation). Instead, a conditional multiple imputation model using chained equations was employed
and used data from baseline, including all relevant IPSS data at baseline, baseline flow, comorbidities, age,
baseline diagnosis and arm. At baseline and 12 months, conditional imputation allowed the model to impute
only for participants with intermittent catheters or no catheters. Participants unable to void with indwelling
catheters were unable to complete urine flow tests and the IPSS questions were not relevant.

The results were based on the equivalence margin prespecified in the trial design process. As the primary
analysis tested equivalence, interpretation of primary analysis results focused on observed differences and
95% CIs for the between-group comparisons. When CIs lay within the equivalence margins, the two arms
were deemed equivalent. When equivalence was not achieved, the team tested for superiority, as this does
not incur a statistical penalty.23

H0: For IPSS and Qmax, ThuVARP is better or worse than TURP by more than 2.5 points or
4 ml/second, respectively.
H1: For IPSS and Qmax, ThuVARP is not better or worse than TURP by more than 2.5 points or
4 ml/second, respectively.

Secondary outcomes
All secondary analyses, unlike the primary analyses, tested for superiority. Therefore, p-values were
presented alongside observed differences and CIs. All analyses were adjusted for centre and diagnosis at
baseline (LUTS/retention), apart from the Clavien–Dindo19 grading of complications (based on the small
number of events).

l Prespecified surgical complications were collected in CRFs both at the perioperative stage and at each
time point when a clinic CRF was administered. The Clavien–Dindo (1–5) classification scale of surgical
complications was used to grade the severity of each complication. The number of complications
experienced per participant was explored, along with the worst event per participant, using ordinal
logistic regression. Given that complications were repeatedly reported across CRFs, the data were not
explored at the event level. The complications were graded using the following system:

1. deviation from normal postoperative course without the need for further interventions
(pharmaceutical, surgical, etc.)
2. requiring pharmacological treatment
3. requiring surgical intervention (a) not under general anaesthetic or (b) under general anaesthetic
4. life-threatening complication: (a) single-organ or (b) multiorgan failure
5. death of the participant.

l The number of hours that the participant remained in hospital after surgery and the drop in blood
haemoglobin/sodium levels were compared between the two arms using linear regression. When the
distributions of continuous variables were skewed, medians and IQRs were presented alongside regression
models (after checking residuals). The p-value was also compared with the one achieved from the
Mann–Whitney U-test to ensure consistency. The number of hours until successful trial without catheter
was analysed using a Cox proportional hazards model, whereby the assumption of proportional hazards

© Queen’s Printer and Controller of HMSO 2020. This work was produced by Worthington et al. under the terms of a commissioning contract issued by the Secretary of State for
Health and Social Care. This issue may be freely reproduced for the purposes of private research and study and extracts (or indeed, the full report) may be included in professional
journals provided that suitable acknowledgement is made and the reproduction is not associated with any form of advertising. Applications for commercial reproduction should
11
be addressed to: NIHR Journals Library, National Institute for Health Research, Evaluation, Trials and Studies Coordinating Centre, Alpha House, University of Southampton Science
Park, Southampton SO16 7NS, UK.
 METHODS

was checked using a Schoenfeld residuals test.24 The requirement of a blood transfusion was recorded
perioperatively, postoperatively and 3 months and 12 months after surgery. The proportion of participants
requiring a transfusion within 12 months of surgery was compared between the arms using logistic
regression. Catheter use was recorded at 3 months and 12 months and the proportion of men using a
catheter was compared using logistic regression, for both time points. We intended to compare post-void
residual at 12 months using linear regression; however, after inspecting the results, the decision was
made to compare the groups using logistic regression (zero vs. non-zero residuals) and ordinal logistic
regression, as a large proportion of participants had post-void residuals of zero.
l Each of the following patient-reported outcome measures was compared between the arms at 12 months
using linear and logistic regression as appropriate. When the distributions of continuous variables were
skewed, medians and IQRs were presented alongside regression models (after checking residuals).
The p-value was also compared with that achieved from the Mann–Whitney U-test to ensure consistency:

¢ IPSS quality of life

¢ ICIQ-MLUTS
¢ ICIQ-MLUTSsex
¢ ICIQ-LUTSqol
¢ ICIQ-satisfaction
¢ IIEF-5.

A voiding and incontinence score can be created from the ICIQ-MLUTS questionnaire and an overall erectile
dysfunction score can be created from the IIEF-5. Similar to previous studies, the following dichotomous
variables were created for ease of reporting25 (Table 3). The results were also compared on an ordinal scale
to ensure that they remained the same.

TABLE 3 Dichotomous variables for ICIQ-MLUTS and ICIQ-MLUTSsex

New variable Question Coded as 0 Coded as 1

Daytime ICIQ-MLUTS question 13a: how often do If the participant If the participant ticked ‘9 or 10 times’,
frequency you pass urine during the day? ticked ‘1–6 times’ or ’11 or 12 times’ or ‘≥ 13 times’
(> 8 times) ‘7 or 8 times’
Nocturia ICIQ-MLUTS question 14a: during the If the participant If the participant ticked ‘two’, ‘three’
(> 1 times night, how many times do you get up to ticked ‘none’ or ‘one’ or ‘four or more’
per night) urinate, on average?
Erections ICIQ-MLUTSsex question 2a: do you get If the participant If the participant ticked ‘yes, with
(reduced or erections? ticked ‘yes, with reduced rigidity’, ‘yes, with severely
none) normal rigidity’ reduced rigidity’ or ‘no, erection not
possible’
Ejaculation ICIQ-MLUTSsex question 3a: do you If the participant If the participant ticked ‘yes, reduced
(reduced or have an ejaculation of semen? ticked ‘yes, normal quantity’, ‘yes, significantly reduced
none) quantity’ quantity’ or ‘no ejaculation’
Painful ICIQ-MLUTSsex question 4a: do you If the participant If the participant ticked ‘yes, slight
ejaculation have pain or discomfort during ticked ‘no’ pain/discomfort’, ‘yes, moderate
ejaculation? pain/discomfort’ or ‘yes,
severe pain/discomfort’
Urinary ICIQ-MLUTSsex question 5a: to what If the participant If the participant ticked ‘a little’,
symptoms extent do you feel that your sex life has ticked ‘not at all’ ‘somewhat’ or ‘a lot’
affected sex life? been spoilt by your urinary symptoms?
Reproduced from Hashim et al.2 This is an Open Access article distributed in accordance with the terms of the Creative
Commons Attribution (CC BY 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt and build upon this work, for
commercial use, provided the original work is properly cited. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The table
includes minor additions and formatting changes to the original table.

12
NIHR Journals Library www.journalslibrary.nihr.ac.uk
 DOI: 10.3310/hta24410 HEALTH TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT 2020 VOL. 24 NO. 41

Sensitivity analyses
Several sensitivity analyses were conducted to test the robustness of the results to different
assumptions made.

l Complete-case analysis: the primary analysis was repeated without imputation for missing variables.
This set was then used to compute the following sensitivity analyses.
l Per-protocol analysis: using complete cases, the per-protocol analysis included only those patients who
received their randomised treatment. Those who had converted from ThuVARP to TURP were not included.
l Complier average causal effect (CACE) analysis: using complete cases, the CACE analysis utilised all
data but, unlike the primary analysis, incorporated the treatment received variable as the independent
variable and randomisation as an instrumental variable using the ‘iv regress 2sls’ command in Stata.
l Removal of participants: nine participants found out their allocation at their 12-month appointment (not
including those patients who guessed correctly) before they completed the 12-month questionnaire. As the
site confirmed that these participants had become unblinded, they were removed in a sensitivity analysis.
l Adjustment for baseline: as baseline IPSS and Qmax were not available for those patients who had an
indwelling catheter, the primary analysis did not adjust for these baseline measures to avoid a large
number of missing or imputed data. In a sensitivity analysis, participants with an indwelling catheter at
baseline were given an imputed Qmax value of zero. For IPSS, there was no specific single value that
made sense for catheterised participants. Instead, the baseline scores were categorised, in accordance
with the American Urological Association classification,26 into mild (0–7), moderate (8–19) or severe
(20–35). Those participants with an indwelling catheter were placed in the ‘severe’ category.
l Adjustment for imbalance at baseline: covariates that differed at baseline by more than half a SD
(or by 10%) were adjusted for in an additional model to investigate their effect on the difference
observed between the two groups.
l Type of TURP/surgery: ThuVARP was compared separately with monopolar and with bipolar TURP.
The two TURP procedures were also compared in terms of IPSS and Qmax, and therefore as three
two-way tests. However, the results were interpreted with caution as this analysis was exploratory.
l Surgeon effects: a mixed-effects model was conducted that included the surgeon as a random effect
and the centre as a fixed effect in the primary analyses.
l As a post hoc sensitivity analysis, bootstrap regression (4999 replications) was performed to allow for
the slightly skewed distribution of IPSS and Qmax.
l As a post hoc sensitivity analysis, given the slightly skewed distribution of IPSS and Qmax, log-transformations
were carried out. For the IPSS, 1 was added to all scores before being log-transformed (natural log).
Qmax scores were directly log-transformed (natural log). The equivalence margins were also log-transformed
to aid interpretation of CIs, 0.92 and 1.39 for IPSS and Qmax, respectively.

Subgroup analyses
Prespecified subgroups were used to test whether or not the difference between ThuVARP and TURP was
more pronounced in certain subgroups of patients. Although underpowered, tests of interaction between
the dichotomised/categorical variables and treatment were carried out to explore whether or not treatment
effect differed between subgroups; the focus of interpretation is on the CIs rather than the p-values.
These interaction terms were added to the primary analysis model.

Subgroup analyses included:

l baseline diagnosis of LUTS or retention

l age (split by median age)
l preoperative prostate size in ml, estimated during digital rectal examination (small, < 40 ml;
medium, 40–60 ml; large, 60–80 ml; and very large, > 80 ml)
l patients with or without comorbidities at baseline.

© Queen’s Printer and Controller of HMSO 2020. This work was produced by Worthington et al. under the terms of a commissioning contract issued by the Secretary of State for
Health and Social Care. This issue may be freely reproduced for the purposes of private research and study and extracts (or indeed, the full report) may be included in professional
journals provided that suitable acknowledgement is made and the reproduction is not associated with any form of advertising. Applications for commercial reproduction should
13
be addressed to: NIHR Journals Library, National Institute for Health Research, Evaluation, Trials and Studies Coordinating Centre, Alpha House, University of Southampton Science
Park, Southampton SO16 7NS, UK.
 METHODS

In the protocol we had specified that we would look at the length of stay of procedures (day case or
inpatient). However, it was later decided that this would be more suitable as an outcome only, as the
baseline intention would be unlikely to alter the treatment effect on IPSS/Qmax.

Multiple imputation
Multiple imputation by chained equations was used to impute missing values for the primary outcomes.
Originally, as prespecified in the analysis plan, the model intended to use data collected at 6 weeks
and 3 months to inform the 12-month data. However, when these data were included, the model
failed to converge owing to the high collinearity between the measures. On inspection of the CONSORT
(Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials) flow chart (see Figure 1), the team felt that this was not
detrimental to the study as few participants had completed 3-month questionnaires but not 12-month
questionnaires. Instead, the model included baseline and 12-month follow-up variables to inform imputation.
Trial arm, baseline diagnosis of LUTS or urinary retention, baseline comorbidities and age were included as
complete variables. Indwelling catheter status (yes/no) was imputed at baseline and 12 months, while Qmax
and IPSS individual items at baseline and 12 months were imputed conditionally when no indwelling catheter
was present at the corresponding time point. The general rule of thumb is that the number of imputations
should exceed the percentage of incomplete cases; therefore, for this trial, 40 individual imputations were
created and combined using Rubin’s rules in Stata 15.1.27 The prespecified randomisation seed 525 was used
to create reproducible imputations.

14
NIHR Journals Library www.journalslibrary.nihr.ac.uk
 DOI: 10.3310/hta24410 HEALTH TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT 2020 VOL. 24 NO. 41

Chapter 3 Results

Participant flow

Figure 1 shows the layout of the trial and the different levels of dropout and analysis. Overall, 16
randomised patients withdrew from the study before their 12-month end point (with three requesting
complete data withdrawal), with a median withdrawal time of 3.8 months (of the 13 recorded). The IPSS
was able to be analysed for 74% and 78% at 12 months in the ThuVARP and TURP arms, respectively.
Qmax was able to be analysed for 82% and 86% of participants, respectively.

Recruitment

Overall, 410 patients were randomised to receive either ThuVARP or TURP, 205 in each arm (Figure 2).
The first patient to receive surgery was randomised in July 2014 and the final randomised patient had
surgery in December 2016.

Concomitant procedures

Concomitant procedures are shown in Table 4.

Baseline data

Baseline comparisons for the UNBLOCS trial are presented in Tables 5–7. Baseline information on flow rates
and urinary/sexual symptoms and quality of life was not available for those patients with an indwelling
catheter; therefore, the figures are rather low for some baseline variables.

Overall, participants in the TURP arm appeared to be very slightly worse off in terms of patient-reported
measures of symptom burden. However, no large differences were seen between the arms at baseline
in terms of sociodemographic (see Table 5) or clinical characteristics (see Table 6). Painful ejaculation was
the only patient-reported outcome measure that differed by more than an absolute difference of 10%
(see Table 7).

Numbers analysed

When comparing our analysable sample with those patients who withdrew or were lost to follow-up
(i.e. those patients who did not complete the 12-month Qmax or the IPSS), we can see differences that
met the criteria used to look for imbalance between the arms (> 10% or 0.5 SDs). These differences were
seen in centre, daytime urinary frequency and the effect on participants’ sex lives (Table 8). A difference
was also seen in comorbidities, but this did not reach the 10% absolute difference. All variables not
presented in Table 8 were balanced between those patients who were and those patients who were not
analysed at 12 months. However, in general, those patients who withdrew or were lost to follow-up had
slightly worse symptoms at baseline.

The numbers of patients who had outcome data were also relatively balanced between the arms, as are the
numbers of withdrawals. The numbers of patients undergoing their assigned treatment differed between
the arms, with only 75% of those patients randomised to ThuVARP actually receiving their treatment
(p < 0.001) (Table 9).

© Queen’s Printer and Controller of HMSO 2020. This work was produced by Worthington et al. under the terms of a commissioning contract issued by the Secretary of State for
Health and Social Care. This issue may be freely reproduced for the purposes of private research and study and extracts (or indeed, the full report) may be included in professional
journals provided that suitable acknowledgement is made and the reproduction is not associated with any form of advertising. Applications for commercial reproduction should
15
be addressed to: NIHR Journals Library, National Institute for Health Research, Evaluation, Trials and Studies Coordinating Centre, Alpha House, University of Southampton Science
Park, Southampton SO16 7NS, UK.
 RESULTS

Enrolment
Consented patients
(n = 475)

Not randomised
(n = 65)
• Lack of theatre coverage/equipment, n = 11
• Later found to be ineligible, n = 10
• Patient did not want/require surgery, n = 8
• Surgery not appropriate because of risks, n = 8
• Surgery appointment sooner if outside the trial, n = 8
• Randomisation failed or missed, n = 7
• Surgery date outside the trial window, n = 4
• Patient declined to continue in the study, n = 2
• Alternative surgery performed on the day, n = 2
• Deceased, n = 1
• Reason missing, n = 4

Allocation
Randomised
(n = 410)

Allocated to ThuVARP Allocated to TURP

(n = 205) (n = 205)
Received ThuVARP Received TURP
(n = 152) (n = 200)
• Received TURP instead,a n = 12 • Urethral stricture,a n = 3
• Converted to TURP mid-procedure,a n = 36 • Tight bladder neck,a n = 1
• Received an alternative treatment,a n = 3 • Withdrew all data, n = 1
• Withdrew all data, n = 2

Withdrew Withdrew
(n = 1) (n = 0)
Died Died
(n = 1) (n = 0)

Completed 6-week IPSS Completed 6-week IPSS

(n = 152) (n = 154)

Withdrew Withdrew
(n = 1) (n = 1)
Died Died
(n = 0) (n = 0)

Completed 3-month Qmax Completed 3-month Qmax

(n = 171) (n = 176)
Completed 3-month IPSS Completed 3-month IPSS
(n = 158) (n = 157)

Withdrew Withdrew
(n = 4) (n = 4)
Died Died
(n = 0) (n = 1)

Completed 12-month Qmax Completed 12-month Qmax

(n = 168) (n = 176)
Completed 12-month IPSS Completed 12-month IPSS
(n = 151) (n = 159)

FIGURE 1 The UNBLOCS trial CONSORT flow chart. a, Reasons for change are recorded in Table 11. Adapted from
Hashim et al.2 This is an Open Access article distributed in accordance with the terms of the Creative Commons
Attribution (CC BY 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt and build upon this work, for
commercial use, provided the original work is properly cited. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
The figure includes minor additions and formatting changes to the original figure.

16
NIHR Journals Library www.journalslibrary.nihr.ac.uk
 DOI: 10.3310/hta24410 HEALTH TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT 2020 VOL. 24 NO. 41

30
400

Cumulative recruitment total

Number recruited per month

300
20

Recruitment
200 Recruits
Cumulative total
10
100

0 0
ne

ch

ne

ch

ne

r
be

be

be

be

be

be
ar

ar
Ju

Ju

Ju
m

em

em

em
M

M
te

te

te
ec

ec

ec
p

p
Se

Se

Se

D
2014 2015 2016
Year

FIGURE 2 Recruitment.

TABLE 4 Concomitant procedures

Trial arm (n)

Concomitant procedure ThuVARP (as treated) TURP (as treated)

Urethrotomy 9 16

Removal of bladder stones/cystolitholapaxy 8 11

Urethral dilatation 7 8

Bladder neck incision 2 6

Bladder biopsy 2 3

Transurethral resection of bladder tumour 1 1

Meatal dilatation 0 2

Cystoscopy 2 1

Drainage of hydrocele 0 1
Circumcision 1 0

Ileostomy 0 1

Guide wire to insert catheter 0 1

Open cystotomy 0 1

Dorsal slit of foreskin 0 1

Excision epidydmal cyst 0 1

Left JJ stent removal 0 1

Penile and urethral strictures dilated 0 1

Left rigid ureteroscopy and stone fragmentation 0 1

© Queen’s Printer and Controller of HMSO 2020. This work was produced by Worthington et al. under the terms of a commissioning contract issued by the Secretary of State for
Health and Social Care. This issue may be freely reproduced for the purposes of private research and study and extracts (or indeed, the full report) may be included in professional
journals provided that suitable acknowledgement is made and the reproduction is not associated with any form of advertising. Applications for commercial reproduction should
17
be addressed to: NIHR Journals Library, National Institute for Health Research, Evaluation, Trials and Studies Coordinating Centre, Alpha House, University of Southampton Science
Park, Southampton SO16 7NS, UK.
 RESULTS

TABLE 5 Baseline sociodemographic characteristics of eligible patients who underwent randomisation

Trial arm

ThuVARP TURP

Characteristic Na n (%) Na n (%)

Age (years), mean (SD) 203 70.85 (7.85) 204 69.22 (7.91)

Eligibility: bothersome LUTS 203 94 (46) 204 102 (50)

Eligibility: urinary retention 203 109 (54) 204 102 (50)

Recruiting centre

1 66 (32) 66 (32)

2 44 (21) 44 (21)
3 33 (16) 32 (16)

4 205 20 (10) 205 20 (10)

5 20 (10) 19 (9)

6 15 (7) 16 (8)

7 7 (3) 8 (4)

Ethnicity

White 199 196 (98) 201 197 (98)

Other 3 (2) 4 (2)
a Available data. Two participants in the ThuVARP arm and one participant in the TURP arm requested that all of their
data be withdrawn; therefore, the maximum values are 203 and 204, respectively (apart from centre).
Adapted from Hashim et al.2 This is an Open Access article distributed in accordance with the terms of the Creative
Commons Attribution (CC BY 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt and build upon this work, for
commercial use, provided the original work is properly cited. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The table
includes minor additions and formatting changes to the original table.

TABLE 6 Baseline clinical characteristics of eligible patients who underwent randomisation

Characteristic Na ThuVARP, n (%) Na TURP, n (%)

BMI on day of surgery (kg/m2), mean (SD) 193 28.54 (4.16) 194 27.83 (4.32)
Comorbidities at baseline (from the Charlson Comorbidity Index)
None 113 (56) 115 (56)
One 203 57 (28) 204 58 (28)
More than one 33 (16) 31 (15)
Catheterisation status (on the day of surgery)
No catheter 202 96 (48) 204 97 (48)
Catheterised 106 (52) 107 (52)
Intermittent 4 (4) 10 (9)
Indwelling 93 (88) 92 (86)
Type not disclosedb 9 (8) 5 (5)

18
NIHR Journals Library www.journalslibrary.nihr.ac.uk
 DOI: 10.3310/hta24410 HEALTH TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT 2020 VOL. 24 NO. 41

TABLE 6 Baseline clinical characteristics of eligible patients who underwent randomisation (continued )

Characteristic Na ThuVARP, n (%) Na TURP, n (%)

Urinary measures (not measured in those patients with indwelling catheter)

Qmax,c mean (SD) 92 8.90 (5.90) 102 8.00 (6.00)
c
Median post-void residual (IQR) 96 157 (53–285) 99 140 (80–300)
c
Median voided volume (IQR) 97 186 (110–251) 100 181 (117–244)
Patient has had urodynamics 192 37 (19) 191 44 (23)
BMI, body mass index.
a Available data. Two participants in the ThuVARP arm and one participant in the TURP arm requested that all of their
data be withdrawn; therefore, the maximum values are 203 and 204, respectively.
b Treated as indwelling for the imputation primary analysis as these participants were unable to void at baseline
(captured in notes).
c Urinary measures were excluded for participants with indwelling catheters at baseline.
Adapted from Hashim et al.2 This is an Open Access article distributed in accordance with the terms of the Creative
Commons Attribution (CC BY 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt and build upon this work, for
commercial use, provided the original work is properly cited. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The table
includes minor additions and formatting changes to the original table.

TABLE 7 Baseline patient-reported outcome measures of eligible patients who underwent randomisation

Outcome measure Na ThuVARP, n (%) Na TURP, n (%)

IPSS: symptom severity, mean (SD)

Incomplete emptying 89 3.12 (1.72) 97 3.29 (1.60)

Frequency 90 3.63 (1.25) 96 3.83 (1.42)
Intermittency 90 2.94 (1.61) 97 2.99 (1.58)
Urgency 90 2.97 (1.64) 96 3.30 (1.44)
Weak stream 90 3.91 (1.36) 97 3.80 (1.30)
Straining 90 2.20 (1.77) 93 2.37 (1.79)
Nocturia 90 2.97 (1.34) 94 2.83 (1.35)
Total IPSS 86 21.74 (6.37) 89 22.56 (6.78)
IPSS quality of life 90 4.89 (1.11) 97 5.01 (1.01)
ICIQ-MLUTS
Voiding score,b mean (SD) 91 11.62 (4.35) 96 11.78 (3.92)
c
Incontinence score, mean (SD) 89 5.75 (3.42) 97 6.10 (3.85)
Daytime frequency (> 8 times) 91 42 (52) 97 56 (58)
Nocturia (> 1 times per night) 91 75 (82) 97 81 (84)
ICIQ-MLUTSsex

Erections (reduced or none) 86 65 (76) 91 65 (71)

Ejaculation (reduced or none) 85 73 (86) 89 75 (84)
Painful ejaculation (yes) 72 13 (18) 85 30 (35)
Urinary symptoms affected sex life? (yes) 82 56 (68) 89 62 (70)
IIEF-5, mean (SD)
Erectile dysfunction scored 65 14.11 (6.51) 74 16.49 (6.17)
IPSS, mean (SD)

Quality of life 90 4.89 (1.11) 97 5.01 (1.01)

continued

© Queen’s Printer and Controller of HMSO 2020. This work was produced by Worthington et al. under the terms of a commissioning contract issued by the Secretary of State for
Health and Social Care. This issue may be freely reproduced for the purposes of private research and study and extracts (or indeed, the full report) may be included in professional
journals provided that suitable acknowledgement is made and the reproduction is not associated with any form of advertising. Applications for commercial reproduction should
19
be addressed to: NIHR Journals Library, National Institute for Health Research, Evaluation, Trials and Studies Coordinating Centre, Alpha House, University of Southampton Science
Park, Southampton SO16 7NS, UK.
 RESULTS

TABLE 7 Baseline patient-reported outcome measures of eligible patients who underwent randomisation
(continued )

Outcome measure Na ThuVARP, n (%) Na TURP, n (%)

ICIQ-LUTSqol
Presence of limitations

Role limitations 88 73 (83) 98 79 (81)

Physical limitations 91 77 (85) 97 84 (87)
Social limitations 89 57 (64) 95 76 (80)
Personal relationships 75 63 (84) 83 67 (81)
Emotions 88 68 (77) 94 84 (89)
Sleep/energy 90 89 (99) 95 91 (86)
Severity measures 87 78 (90) 95 82 (86)
Urinary symptom effect on . . .

Getting embarrassed 90 59 (66) 97 66 (68)

Overall interference with everyday life, mean (SD) 99 6.02 (2.81) 101 6.47 (3.00)
a The number of participants for whom we have data; based on total withdrawals and numbers with indwelling catheters,
the maximum values are 98 and 107, respectively.
b On a scale of 0–20, with higher scores indicating more severe symptoms.
c On a scale of 0–24, with higher scores indicating more severe symptoms.
d Lower scores indicate more severe erectile dysfunction (5–7, severe; 8–11, moderate; 12–16, mild to moderate;
17–21, mild; and 22–25, none).
Bold denotes values that differed by an absolute difference of more than 10%.
Adapted from Hashim et al.2 This is an Open Access article distributed in accordance with the terms of the Creative
Commons Attribution (CC BY 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt and build upon this work, for
commercial use, provided the original work is properly cited. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The table
includes minor additions and formatting changes to the original table.

TABLE 8 Baseline characteristics of those patients assessed in the primary analysis and those patients who
withdrew or were lost to follow-up

Analysable sample Non-responders/withdrawn

Characteristic Na n (%) Na n (%)

Comorbidities at baseline
None 161 (56) 67 (55)
One 286 87 (30) 121 28 (23)
More than one 38 (13) 26 (21)
Recruiting centre
1 92 (32) 40 (32)
2 64 (22) 24 (19)
3 54 (19) 11 (9)
4 286 26 (9) 124 14 (11)
5 24 (8) 15 (12)
6 19 (7) 12 (10)
7 7 (2) 8 (6)
ICIQ-MLUTS
Daytime frequency (> 8 times) 132 112 (85) 56 40 (71)
Urinary symptoms affected sex life? 125 92 (74) 46 26 (57)
a The number of participants for whom we have data; three participants who withdrew requested for all of their data to
be withdrawn, and therefore the maximum values are 286 and 121, respectively (apart from centre).

20
NIHR Journals Library www.journalslibrary.nihr.ac.uk
 DOI: 10.3310/hta24410 HEALTH TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT 2020 VOL. 24 NO. 41

TABLE 9 Data quality in the UNBLOCS trial

Trial arm, n/N (%)

ThuVARP TURP p-valuea

Numbers of withdrawals and lost to follow-up

Number randomised 205 205 –
Number who did undergo their randomised surgery 152/203 (75) 200/204 (98) < 0.001
Withdrew from the study 9/205 (4) 7/205 (3) 0.610
Analysable sample
MI: Qmax at 12 monthsb 197/205 (96) 199/205 (97) 0.587
b
MI: IPSS at 12 months 197/205 (96) 199/205 (97) 0.587
CC: Qmax at 12 months 168/205 (82) 176/205 (86) 0.282
CC: IPSS at 12 months 151/205 (74) 159/205 (78) 0.354
CC, complete case; MI, multiple imputation.
a Chi-squared test.
b Qmax and IPSS were not imputed for those patients who died, those patients who had an indwelling catheter at
12 months or those patients who withdrew all of their data.

Reasons for withdrawal were relatively similar between the arms (Table 10). A large proportion of changes
in treatment were because of equipment failure in the ThuVARP arm, with 18 participants being changed to
TURP straight away or converting mid-procedure (Table 11). Prostate size also resulted in nine conversions
to TURP. The proportion of participants receiving conversions compared with receiving ThuVARP was
relatively balanced across the centres and over time. Between 6% and 25% of participants in each centre
received a conversion from ThuVARP to TURP. When breaking the recruitment period per surgeon into
halves, the conversion rate in the first half was 11%, whereas it increased to 28% in the second half.

Statistical outcomes and estimation

International Prostate Symptom Score

The first of two primary outcomes was the IPSS at 12 months. The null hypothesis was that the two
surgical procedures differed by at least 2.5 points, while the alternative hypothesis was that the two
procedures were equivalent. At the 12-month point from surgery, IPSS (overall median 4.0 points) was
much lower than that recorded in baseline questionnaires (overall median 23.0 points). However, it was

TABLE 10 Reasons for withdrawal

Trial arm, n/N (%)

Reason for withdrawal ThuVARP TURP

Other health problems became a priority 5/205 0/205
a
Death of the participant 1 /205 1b/205
Reason not given 1/205 0/205
Did not wish to attend clinics or have questionnaires 1/205 3/205
Not happy with surgery outcome 0/205 1/205
Experienced adverse event 0/205 1/205
New diagnosis → no surgery c
1/205 1/205
a Bowel ischaemia and subsequent organ failure.
b Acute myocardial infarction.
c Both of these participants requested complete data withdrawal.

© Queen’s Printer and Controller of HMSO 2020. This work was produced by Worthington et al. under the terms of a commissioning contract issued by the Secretary of State for
Health and Social Care. This issue may be freely reproduced for the purposes of private research and study and extracts (or indeed, the full report) may be included in professional
journals provided that suitable acknowledgement is made and the reproduction is not associated with any form of advertising. Applications for commercial reproduction should
21
be addressed to: NIHR Journals Library, National Institute for Health Research, Evaluation, Trials and Studies Coordinating Centre, Alpha House, University of Southampton Science
Park, Southampton SO16 7NS, UK.
 RESULTS

TABLE 11 Reasons for change in treatment

Number of
Treatment received Reason participants

Change in treatment from TURP

Urethral stricture Prostate reasonable size 2
Urethral stricture Unable to access urethra 1
Bladder neck incision Tight bladder neck 1
Change in treatment from ThuVARP
TURP Equipment failure (no treatment with ThuVARP) 9
TURP Anaesthetic complications 1
TURP No laser-trained nursing staff available 1
TURP Start time delayed, so proceeded with TURP 1
Conversion (TV-TP) Equipment failure (converted to TURP mid-procedure) 9
Conversion (TV-TP) Very large prostate 9
Conversion (TV-TP) Bleeding 5
Conversion (TV-TP) To collect remaining fragments of prostate 4
Conversion (TV-TP) Failed to progress with ThuVARP 4
Conversion (TV-TP) Poor visibility 3
Conversion (TV-TP) Incidental finding of tumour 1
Conversion (TV-TP) No details found 1
Optical urethrotome No details found 1
Prostatic embolism Prostate too big for ThuVARP/TURP 1
Transurethral resection of Risk of seeding tumour cells into prostatic urethra so no bladder 1
bladder tumour outlet procedure performed
TP, TURP; TV, ThuVARP.
Reproduced from Hashim et al.2 This is an Open Access article distributed in accordance with the terms of the Creative
Commons Attribution (CC BY 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt and build upon this work, for
commercial use, provided the original work is properly cited. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The table
includes minor additions and formatting changes to the original table.

possible to obtain IPSS at baseline only for those patients who did not have an indwelling catheter
(n = 175). The distribution of scores at 12 months is presented in Figure 3.

The box plot in Figure 4 shows the distribution of IPSS for each arm. They are very similar, both sharing a
median score of 4 and an IQR of 2–8 points.

Given the skewed nature of the data, as well as the prespecified linear regression model, a bootstrap
regression model was calculated as a post hoc sensitivity analysis.

Maximum urine flow rate values

The second of the two primary outcomes was the maximum urine flow rate at 12 months. The null
hypothesis was that the two surgical procedures differed by at least 4 ml/second, while the alternative
hypothesis was that the two procedures were equivalent. As with IPSS, 12 months after surgery, Qmax
values were much improved from those values recorded at baseline (Figure 5). However, baseline Qmax
values were possible to collect from only patients without an indwelling catheter.

The box plot in Figure 6 shows the maximum urine flow rates by trial arm. The results show that those
patients in the ThuVARP arm had a median 12-month Qmax of 17 ml/second (IQR 11–27 ml/second),
whereas those in the TURP arm had a median Qmax of 20 ml/second (IQR 13–32 ml/second).

22
NIHR Journals Library www.journalslibrary.nihr.ac.uk
 DOI: 10.3310/hta24410 HEALTH TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT 2020 VOL. 24 NO. 41

(a)
25

20

Frequency
15

10

0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
IPSS at 12 months
(b)
25

20
Frequency

15

10

0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
IPSS at 12 months

FIGURE 3 Distribution of IPSS at 12 months for (a) ThuVARP; and (b) TURP.

30
IPSS at 12 months

20

10

0
TURP ThuVARP
Trial arm

FIGURE 4 Box plot of IPSS for TURP vs. ThuVARP. The box plot indicates the median (central line in the box), 25th
percentile (bottom line of the box), 75th percentile (top line of the box) and the whiskers are for the lowest and
highest values (excluding outliers). The dots beyond these whiskers are the outliers, which are observations that lie
an abnormal distance from other values. Outliers are defined as those higher than (1.5 × IQR) + (75th percentile) or
lower than (25th percentile) – (1.5 × IQR).

© Queen’s Printer and Controller of HMSO 2020. This work was produced by Worthington et al. under the terms of a commissioning contract issued by the Secretary of State for
Health and Social Care. This issue may be freely reproduced for the purposes of private research and study and extracts (or indeed, the full report) may be included in professional
journals provided that suitable acknowledgement is made and the reproduction is not associated with any form of advertising. Applications for commercial reproduction should
23
be addressed to: NIHR Journals Library, National Institute for Health Research, Evaluation, Trials and Studies Coordinating Centre, Alpha House, University of Southampton Science
Park, Southampton SO16 7NS, UK.
 RESULTS

(a)
25

20

Frequency
15

10

0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Qmax
(b)
25

20
Frequency

15

10

0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Qmax

FIGURE 5 Distribution of Qmax values at 12 months for (a) ThuVARP; and (b) TURP.

80

60
Qmax

40

20

0
TURP ThuVARP
Trial arm

FIGURE 6 Box plot of Qmax values for TURP vs. ThuVARP. The box plot indicates the median (central line in the box),
25th percentile (bottom line of the box), 75th percentile (top line of the box) and the whiskers are for the lowest
and highest values (excluding outliers). The dots beyond these whiskers are the outliers, which are observations that
lie an abnormal distance from other values. Outliers are defined as those higher than (1.5 × IQR) + (75th percentile)
or lower than (25th percentile) – (1.5 × IQR).

24
NIHR Journals Library www.journalslibrary.nihr.ac.uk
 DOI: 10.3310/hta24410 HEALTH TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT 2020 VOL. 24 NO. 41

As with the IPSS, given the slightly skewed nature of the data, a bootstrap regression model was
calculated as a post hoc sensitivity analysis.

Primary analysis results

The multiple imputation model included all randomised patients, apart from those patients who withdrew
all data (n = 3). It imputed the catheter status, IPSS and Qmax at baseline and 12 months where data were
incomplete. It employed a conditional imputation, whereby initially catheter status was imputed followed by
IPSS/Qmax values only for those patients without a catheter. For participants who died during the trial period,
we did not impute any data after their time of death (Table 12).

The equivalence margin for IPSS was prespecified as 2.5 points. The difference between the arms, using
the imputed model, was 0.28 points. The two procedures appear to be equivalent for the IPSS as the CIs
are within the range –2.5 to 2.5 points; therefore, this blinded trial has demonstrated that a patient’s
perception of urinary tract symptoms after treatment is equivalent for the ThuVARP and TURP procedures.

The equivalence margin for the Qmax levels was prespecified as 4 ml/second. The ThuVARP procedure
gives a lower maximum urine flow rate at 12 months than TURP (just over 3 ml/second). The CIs are
outside the range –4 to 4 ml/second, with the lower reaching almost 6 ml/second, deeming the treatments
non-equivalent with respect to Qmax. Changing the test to superiority, which does not carry a statistical
penalty after a non-inferiority or equivalence trial, did lead us to conclude that TURP is superior to
ThuVARP in terms of maximum urine flow rate for both the complete-case and the imputation analyses.28

Success of blinding
In their 12-month questionnaire, participants were asked if they thought they knew which type of surgery
they had undergone. Overall, 70% (238/339) of patients said that they did not know which operation they
received. When asked to predict their surgery, 40% (138/346) of patients did so. Of those who predicted
ThuVARP, 54% were correct; of those who predicted TURP, 82% were correct. However, of those who
were correct, 80% went on to say that they did not actually know/they had guessed. Based on this, the
team felt that blinding had been successful. Unfortunately, a research nurse unblinded nine participants
at their 12-month clinic appointment (before they had completed their 12-month questionnaire). In a
sensitivity analysis, these participants were removed to avoid any potential bias from the IPSS results.

TABLE 12 Primary analysis results

Trial arm, mean (SD)

Crude difference in Adjusted difference
Variable N (TV:TR) ThuVARP TURP means (95% CI) in meansa (95% CI)

Primary analysis (MI)

IPSS 197:199 6.43 (6.79) 6.26 (5.79) 0.16 (–1.08 to 1.41) 0.28 (–0.92 to 1.49)

Qmax 197:199 20.16 (16.88) 23.24 (13.28) –3.08 (–5.75 to –0.41) –3.12 (–5.79 to –0.45)

Primary analysis (CC)

IPSS 151:159 6.29 (6.22) 6.03 (5.21) 0.26 (–1.02 to 1.54) 0.43 (–0.78 to 1.64)

Qmax 168:176 20.19 (12.43) 23.47 (12.82) –3.28 (–5.96 to –0.60) –3.42 (–6.10 to –0.73)
CC, complete case; MI, multiple imputation; TR, TURP; TV, ThuVARP.
a Adjusted for centre and baseline diagnosis.
Adapted from Hashim et al.2 This is an Open Access article distributed in accordance with the terms of the Creative
Commons Attribution (CC BY 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt and build upon this work, for
commercial use, provided the original work is properly cited. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The table
includes minor additions and formatting changes to the original table.

© Queen’s Printer and Controller of HMSO 2020. This work was produced by Worthington et al. under the terms of a commissioning contract issued by the Secretary of State for
Health and Social Care. This issue may be freely reproduced for the purposes of private research and study and extracts (or indeed, the full report) may be included in professional
journals provided that suitable acknowledgement is made and the reproduction is not associated with any form of advertising. Applications for commercial reproduction should
25
be addressed to: NIHR Journals Library, National Institute for Health Research, Evaluation, Trials and Studies Coordinating Centre, Alpha House, University of Southampton Science
Park, Southampton SO16 7NS, UK.
 RESULTS

Secondary outcomes: surgical complications

Surgical complications were recorded during surgery, postoperatively and at the 3-month and 12-month
clinics. Where participants did not attend follow-up clinic, details of complications were extracted from the
participants’ medical notes.

Perioperative complications
Overall, there were 28 complications in theatre or during the recovery period: 17 in the ThuVARP arm and
11 in the TURP arm (Table 13).

Although there appeared to be more events in the ThuVARP arm, when looking at treatment received
we could establish that only 8 of those 17 complications were experienced during ThuVARP, whereas
2 were from TURP and 7 were during conversions from ThuVARP to TURP. ‘Other’ complications were
not presented as these were reported differently across sites and did not always reflect true complications
(e.g. broken laser fibre).

Postoperative complications
Data on surgical outcomes (Table 14) and postoperative complications (Table 15) were collected from
postoperative, 3-month and 12-month CRFs completed by a clinician. The average length of stay was
48 hours in both arms of the trial. Transfusion and catheter requirement rates were low and similar.
There was no evidence to suggest that one arm was better than the other for surgical outcomes. There
was some evidence to suggest that there might have been a trend towards higher post-void residuals in
the ThuVARP arm; however, when comparing the number of men with zero post-void residual volume,
there did not appear to be a difference.

The numbers of events in each arm were extremely similar (see Table 15). Rows have been omitted when
certain grades were not experienced by a single participant; for example, the odds ratio for urinary tract
infections suggested that those patients in the ThuVARP arm were at a 2% higher odds of being in a higher
Clavien–Dindo grade (0–5) than those patients in the TURP arm (p = 0.938). The highest Clavien–Dindo
score recorded was IVb (a life-threatening complication requiring intensive care – multiorgan dysfunction).
This was experienced twice by the same participant during a urinary tract infection and sepsis episode.
This participant died 1 month later, but this was deemed unrelated (see Serious adverse events).

If we look at the total number of events experienced per participant, we see that the majority do not
experience an event: 56% in the ThuVARP arm and 53% in the TURP arm (Table 16). There was no
evidence to suggest that there are more events in one arm of the trial.

TABLE 13 Perioperative surgical outcomes

Trial arm, n (%)

Variable ThuVARP TURP

Perioperative complications

Anaesthetic complications 8/203 (4) 4/204 (2)

Bleeding requiring haemoglobin measurement 4/203 (2) 3/204 (1)
Blood transfusion 0/203 (0) 1/204 (< 1)
TUR syndrome 0/203 (0) 0/204 (0)
Perforation/extravation 4/203 (2) 3/204 (1)
Catheter misplacement 1/203 (< 1) 0/204 (0)
Reproduced from Hashim et al.2 This is an Open Access article distributed in accordance with the terms of the Creative
Commons Attribution (CC BY 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt and build upon this work, for
commercial use, provided the original work is properly cited. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The table
includes minor additions and formatting changes to the original table.

26
NIHR Journals Library www.journalslibrary.nihr.ac.uk
 DOI: 10.3310/hta24410 HEALTH TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT 2020 VOL. 24 NO. 41

TABLE 14 Additional surgical outcomes

Trial arm
Adjusted comparison,a
Variable N (TV:TR) ThuVARP TURP (95% CI) p-value

Surgical outcomes

Length of hospital stay (hours), 198:198 48 (29 to 58) 48 (29 to 61) –3.28 (–9.61 to 3.06)b 0.310
median (IQR)

Transfusion required (yes/no), n (%) 200:202 3 (2) 4 (2) 0.79 (0.17 to 3.62)c 0.765

Postoperative catheter time (days), 195:198 2 (1 to 5) 2 (1 to 4) 1.02 (0.83 to 1.26)d 0.830

median (IQR)

Catheter required at 3 months, n (%) 196:201 5 (3) 5 (2) 0.99 (0.28 to 3.49)c 0.988

Catheter required at 12 months, n (%) 192:195 4 (2) 2 (1) 1.95 (0.35 to 10.82)c 0.446

Haemoglobin: blood loss (g/l),e 146:138 –6 (–13 to –1) –8 (–16 to –2) 0.88 (–2.14 to 3.89)b 0.568
median (IQR)

Serum sodium (mmol/l),e median (IQR) 141:138 –2 (–4 to –1) –3 (–4 to –1) 0.40 (–0.34 to 1.14)b 0.290

Post-void residual, n (%) 169:176 1.02 (0.58 to 1.78)f 0.950

Quintile 1 (0) 39 (23) 39 (22)

Quintile 2 (1–34) 21 (12) 39 (22)

g
Quintile 3 (35–71) 35 (21) 35 (20) 1.46 (1.00 to 2.15) 0.053

Quintile 4 (72–140) 32 (19) 36 (20)

Quintile 5 (≥ 141) 42 (25) 27 (15)

TR, TURP; TV, ThuVARP.
a Adjusted for centre and baseline diagnosis, excluding ‘Transfusion required’, which was not adjusted for centre owing to
perfect prediction.
b Linear regression.
c Logistic regression.
d Hazard ratio.
e Negative values indicate that levels collected postoperatively were lower than those levels collected at baseline.
f Logistic regression comparing non-zero with zero.
g Ordinal logistic regression, with an odds ratio presented.
Adapted from Hashim et al.2 This is an Open Access article distributed in accordance with the terms of the Creative
Commons Attribution (CC BY 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt and build upon this work, for
commercial use, provided the original work is properly cited. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The table
includes minor additions and formatting changes to the original table.

TABLE 15 Postoperative surgical complications (Clavien–Dindo scores per patient)a

Trial arm, n (%)

Variableb ThuVARP TURP ORc (95% CI) p-value

Bleeding requiring haemoglobin measurement
Not experienced 188 (94) 189 (94) 1.00 (0.42 to 2.35) 0.992
Clavien–Dindo grade I 10 (5) 8 (4)
Clavien–Dindo grade II 0 (0) 2 (1)
Clavien–Dindo grade IIIb 1 (1) 1 (1)
TUR syndrome
Not experienced 203 (100) 203 (100) – –
continued

© Queen’s Printer and Controller of HMSO 2020. This work was produced by Worthington et al. under the terms of a commissioning contract issued by the Secretary of State for
Health and Social Care. This issue may be freely reproduced for the purposes of private research and study and extracts (or indeed, the full report) may be included in professional
journals provided that suitable acknowledgement is made and the reproduction is not associated with any form of advertising. Applications for commercial reproduction should
27
be addressed to: NIHR Journals Library, National Institute for Health Research, Evaluation, Trials and Studies Coordinating Centre, Alpha House, University of Southampton Science
Park, Southampton SO16 7NS, UK.
 RESULTS

TABLE 15 Postoperative surgical complications (Clavien–Dindo scores per patient)a (continued )

Trial arm, n (%)

Variableb ThuVARP TURP ORc (95% CI) p-value

Catheter misplacement
Not experienced 198 (100) 199 (> 99) – –
Clavien–Dindo grade II 0 1 (1)
Clot retention
Not experienced 190 (95) 189 (94) 0.74 (0.30 to 1.79) 0.498
Clavien–Dindo grade I 9 (5) 9 (4)
Clavien–Dindo grade II 0 (0) 2 (1)
Clavien–Dindo grade IIIb 0 (0) 1 (< 1)
Urethral stricture
Not experienced 191 (96) 195 (98) 1.43 (0.45 to 4.59) 0.546
Clavien–Dindo grade I 0 (0) 2 (1)
Clavien–Dindo grade II 0 (0) 0 (0)
Clavien–Dindo grade IIIa 4 (2) 0 (0)
Clavien–Dindo grade IIIb 3 (2) 3 (2)
Urinary tract infection
Not experienced 131 (68) 136 (68) 1.02 (0.67 to 1.55) 0.938
Clavien–Dindo grade I 10 (5) 11 (6)
Clavien–Dindo grade II 51 (26) 53 (27)
Clavien–Dindo grade IVb 1 (1) 0 (0)
Pyrexia of unknown region
Not experienced 188 (97) 190 (98) 1.50 (0.42 to 5.41) 0.533
Clavien–Dindo grade I 2 (1) 0 (0)
Clavien–Dindo grade II 4 (2) 4 (2)
Sepsis/septicaemia/abscess
Not experienced 190 (99) 189 (98) 0.50 (0.09 to 2.76) 0.427
Clavien–Dindo grade II 1 (1) 3 (2)
Clavien–Dindo grade IVa 0 (0) 1 (1)
Clavien–Dindo grade IVb 1 (1) 0 (0)
Other infection
Not experienced 186 (97) 187 (96) 0.71 (0.22 to 2.29) 0.570
Clavien–Dindo grade I 1 (1) 0 (0)
Clavien–Dindo grade II 4 (2) 7 (4)
OR, odds ratio.
a When participants experienced multiple grading within one complication type, the highest was taken.
b Categories of grading are missing when they were not experienced by at least one participant.
c Ordinal logistic regression, not adjusted for centre or baseline diagnosis given the small number of events.
Adapted from Hashim et al.2 This is an Open Access article distributed in accordance with the terms of the Creative
Commons Attribution (CC BY 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt and build upon this work, for
commercial use, provided the original work is properly cited. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The table
includes minor additions and formatting changes to the original table.

28
NIHR Journals Library www.journalslibrary.nihr.ac.uk
 DOI: 10.3310/hta24410 HEALTH TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT 2020 VOL. 24 NO. 41

TABLE 16 Total number of complications during the 12-month period

Trial arm, n (%)

Variable ThuVARP TURP ORa (95% CI) p-value

Number of complications experienced

0 107 (53) 113 (56) 1.10 (0.75 to 1.63) 0.623

1 28 (14) 27 (13)
2 40 (20) 26 (13)
3 10 (5) 15 (7)
4 9 (4) 9 (4)
5 4 (2) 4 (2)
6 0 (0) 6 (3)
7 2 (1) 0 (0)
8 1 (< 1) 1 (< 1)
9 0 (0) 2 (1)
10 1 (< 1) 1 (< 1)
11 1 (< 1) 0 (0)
OR, odds ratio.
a Ordinal logistic regression comparing 0, 1 and > 1 events per person, adjusted for centre and baseline diagnosis of LUTS
or urinary retention.
Adapted from Hashim et al.2 This is an Open Access article distributed in accordance with the terms of the Creative
Commons Attribution (CC BY 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt and build upon this work, for
commercial use, provided the original work is properly cited. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The table
includes minor additions and formatting changes to the original table.

Secondary outcomes: patient-reported outcomes

Overall patient-reported outcomes were similar in the two arms. Although urinary symptoms were
generally worse in the ThuVARP arm, all differences could be explained by chance (Table 17). For nocturia
(getting up to urinate more than once per night), there was some evidence to suggest that TURP was
more effective in reducing the proportion of men reporting this outcome, which was strengthened when
looking at this on an ordinal scale (p = 0.031). However, given the large number of secondary outcomes,
we cannot rule out that this may have been a chance finding. Sexual symptoms were similar but with
reduction in painful ejaculation still slightly in favour of ThuVARP; however, this difference had been
already present at baseline.

Participants in both arms seemed generally satisfied with their treatment, with 207 out of 340 (61%) of all
patients giving the maximum score of 10 (Table 18). Participants in the ThuVARP arm were at a lower odds
of saying that they would have the same treatment again if they had the same problem in the future, but
there was only very weak statistical evidence to support this finding.

Overall, quality of life was very high in both arms at 12 months (Table 19). Fifty-eight per cent (193/335) of
all participants answered ‘not at all’ to the question ‘Overall, how much do urinary symptoms interfere with
your everyday life?’ on the ICIQ-LUTSqol. This was reflected in the IPSS quality of life question, to which 170
(50%) participants responded that they would be delighted if they were to spend the rest of their lives with
their current urinary condition.

Looking at specific scores, we see weak evidence to suggest that those in the ThuVARP arm are at a lower
odds of both getting embarrassed by their urinary problem and scoring at least 1 on the King’s Health
Questionnaire severity measures scale (which includes wearing pads, changing underclothes because of
leakage, worrying in case of smell and being careful of fluid intake).

© Queen’s Printer and Controller of HMSO 2020. This work was produced by Worthington et al. under the terms of a commissioning contract issued by the Secretary of State for
Health and Social Care. This issue may be freely reproduced for the purposes of private research and study and extracts (or indeed, the full report) may be included in professional
journals provided that suitable acknowledgement is made and the reproduction is not associated with any form of advertising. Applications for commercial reproduction should
29
be addressed to: NIHR Journals Library, National Institute for Health Research, Evaluation, Trials and Studies Coordinating Centre, Alpha House, University of Southampton Science
Park, Southampton SO16 7NS, UK.
 RESULTS

TABLE 17 Secondary outcome: urinary and sexual symptoms

Trial arm, n (%)

Adjusted differencea
Variable N (TV:TR) ThuVARP TURP (95% CI) p-valuea

Secondary analysis (ICIQ-MLUTS)

ICSmaleVS (voiding scale),b 164:173 3.14 (3.40) 3.00 (3.07) 0.15 (–0.53 to 0.82) 0.666
mean (SD)
ICSmaleIS (incontinence scale),c 165:175 2.40 (2.65) 2.23 (2.37) 0.22 (–0.30 to 0.75) 0.406
mean (SD)
Daytime frequency (> 8 times) 164:175 20 (12) 18 (10) 1.20 (0.61 to 2.39) 0.597
Nocturia (> 1 times per night) 164:172 72 (44) 63 (37) 1.47 (0.93 to 2.34) 0.102
Secondary analysis (ICIQ-MLUTSsex)
Erections (reduced or none) 145:152 101 (70) 113 (74) 0.79 (0.47 to 1.31) 0.356
Ejaculation (reduced or none) 139:148 129 (93) 136 (92) 1.13 (0.47 to 2.71) 0.780
Painful ejaculation (yes) 118:139 8 (7) 17 (12) 0.55 (0.22 to 1.32) 0.179
Urinary symptoms affected 133:145 74 (56) 88 (61) 0.81 (0.50 to 1.31) 0.339
sex life?
Secondary analysis (IIEF-5), mean (SD)
Erectile dysfunction scored 100:118 14.18 (7.46) 15.14 (7.34) –0.95 (–2.95 to 1.05) 0.348
TR, TURP; TV, ThuVARP.
a Adjusted for centre and baseline diagnosis using linear or logistic regression. Analyses for binary sexual symptoms were
not adjusted for centre owing to perfect prediction.
b Voiding on a scale of 0–20, with higher scores indicating more severe symptoms.
c Incontinence on a scale of 0–24, with higher scores indicating more severe symptoms.
d Lower scores indicate more severe erectile dysfunction (5–7, severe; 8–11, moderate; 12–16, mild to moderate;
17–21, mild; and 22–25, none).
Adapted from Hashim et al.2 This is an Open Access article distributed in accordance with the terms of the Creative
Commons Attribution (CC BY 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt and build upon this work, for
commercial use, provided the original work is properly cited. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The table
includes minor additions and formatting changes to the original table.

TABLE 18 Secondary outcome: satisfaction with treatment

Trial arm, n (%)

Variable N (TV:TR) ThuVARP TURP p-value

Satisfaction with treatment

Overall how satisfied were youa (0–10)?, mean (SD) 163:177 8.67 (2.42) 8.88 (1.92) 0.338b

Same treatment again?c

Yes, definitely/probably 165:174 150 (91) 165 (95) 0.156d

Not sure 11 (7) 5 (3)

No, definitely/probably not 4 (2) 4 (2)

a Higher scores indicate greater satisfaction.
b Adjusted for centre and baseline diagnosis using linear regression.
c Question: If you were in the same situation again, would you still have the same treatment?
d Adjusted for centre and baseline diagnosis using ordinal logistic regression.
Adapted from Hashim et al.2 This is an Open Access article distributed in accordance with the terms of the Creative
Commons Attribution (CC BY 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt and build upon this work, for
commercial use, provided the original work is properly cited. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The table
includes minor additions and formatting changes to the original table.

30
NIHR Journals Library www.journalslibrary.nihr.ac.uk
 DOI: 10.3310/hta24410 HEALTH TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT 2020 VOL. 24 NO. 41

TABLE 19 Secondary outcome: quality-of-life questionnaire

Trial arm, n (%)

Adjusted differencea
Variable N (TV:TR) ThuVARP TURP (95% CI) p-valuea

Quality of life, mean (SD)

IPSS quality of life 164:175 1.22 (1.67) 1.08 (1.46) –0.17 (–0.15 to 0.49) 0.294
Presence of limitations
Role limitations 165:172 40 (24) 39 (23) 1.11 (0.66 to 1.87) 0.690
Physical limitations 165:172 59 (36) 55 (32) 1.24 (0.77 to 2.00) 0.374
Social limitations 164:172 30 (18) 33 (19) 0.97 (0.56 to 1.69) 0.911
Personal relationships 115:128 76 (66) 81 (63) 1.18 (0.69 to 2.02) 0.555
Emotions 163:176 42 (26) 52 (30) 0.86 (0.52 to 1.42) 0.552
Sleep/energy 162:174 116 (72) 129 (74) 0.91 (0.55 to 1.50) 0.710
Severity measures 161:168 76 (47) 97 (58) 0.65 (0.41 to 1.03) 0.067
Urinary symptom effect on . . .
Getting embarrassed 164:175 23 (14) 37 (21) 0.61 (0.34 to 1.11) 0.108
Overall interference with 162:173 1.33 (2.39) 1.42 (2.27) –0.07 (–0.55 to 0.41) 0.778
everyday life, mean (SD)
TR, TURP; TV, ThuVARP.
a Logistic/linear regression, adjusted for centre and whether the participant had retention or LUTS at baseline.
Adapted from Hashim et al.2 This is an Open Access article distributed in accordance with the terms of the Creative
Commons Attribution (CC BY 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt and build upon this work, for
commercial use, provided the original work is properly cited. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The table
includes minor additions and formatting changes to the original table.

Statistical ancillary analyses

Subgroup analyses
Formal tests of interaction were employed to explore potential effect modifiers. Looking at the interaction
tests for the prespecified subgroups (Tables 20 and 21), we can see that those participants diagnosed with
LUTS benefited from a greater increase in Qmax if they were in the TURP arm, whereas there was little
difference between the arms in those patients diagnosed with urinary retention. Younger men were also
more likely to benefit from TURP than from ThuVARP in terms of Qmax. However, all 95% CIs were
consistent with no interaction effects, although these analyses are likely to be underpowered.

Sensitivity analyses
Several sensitivity analyses were conducted to test the robustness of the primary outcome results. The
per-protocol and CACE analyses (although prone to bias) strengthened the intention-to-treat results. In the
imputation primary analysis, the IPSS differed by 0.28, whereas in the per-protocol and CACE analyses
the differences were –0.04 and 0.05, respectively, with CIs indicating equivalence (Figure 7 and Table 22).

In the imputation primary analysis, Qmax levels differed between the arms by –3.12 in favour of TURP.
For the per-protocol and CACE analyses, the differences were –4.61 and –4.67, respectively, indicating a
larger improvement for the TURP arm (Figure 8 and see Table 22). The multiple imputation, complete-case,
per-protocol and CACE analyses all demonstrated non-equivalence. Changing the hypothesis to superiority,
not penalised after non-inferiority or equivalence, the results demonstrated that TURP was superior to
ThuVARP.28

© Queen’s Printer and Controller of HMSO 2020. This work was produced by Worthington et al. under the terms of a commissioning contract issued by the Secretary of State for
Health and Social Care. This issue may be freely reproduced for the purposes of private research and study and extracts (or indeed, the full report) may be included in professional
journals provided that suitable acknowledgement is made and the reproduction is not associated with any form of advertising. Applications for commercial reproduction should
31
be addressed to: NIHR Journals Library, National Institute for Health Research, Evaluation, Trials and Studies Coordinating Centre, Alpha House, University of Southampton Science
Park, Southampton SO16 7NS, UK.
 RESULTS

TABLE 20 Subgroup analyses: IPSS at 12 months

IPSS at 12 months

Trial arm, mean (SD); n

Subgroup-specific Interaction MD
Variable ThuVARP TURP MD (95% CI)a (95% CI)b p-value

Subgroup analyses
Baseline diagnosis

LUTS 8.19 (7.38); 64 7.63 (5.72); 78 0.52 (–1.63 to 2.67) – 0.888

Urinary retention 4.90 (4.80); 87 4.49 (4.16); 81 0.32 (–1.03 to 1.68)
–0.17 (–2.61 to 2.27)
Age (years)

< 70 6.83 (7.04); 75 6.27 (5.59); 90 1.00 (–0.83 to 2.83) – 0.519

≥ 70 5.76 (5.30); 76 5.72 (4.70); 69 –0.07 (–1.68 to 1.53)
–0.79 (–3.23 to 1.66)
Perioperative prostate size (ml)

Small (< 40) 6.21 (5.39); 68 6.38 (5.69); 63 –0.18 (–2.10 to 1.74) – 0.614c
Medium (40–60) 6.68 (6.63); 41 5.72 (5.34); 53 0.54 (–1.64 to 2.72) 0.90 (–2.00 to 3.81)
Large (60–80) 5.40 (7.22); 20 4.65 (3.33); 17 –0.25 (–3.97 to 3.47) 1.20 (–2.85 to 5.24)
Very large (> 80) 6.67 (7.35); 12 5.50 (3.07); 8 3.76 (–3.08 to 10.59) 2.61 (–2.71 to 7.93)
Comorbidities at baseline

With 6.27 (5.56); 67 6.77 (5.39); 64 –0.60 (–2.43 to 1.23) – 0.202

Without 6.31 (6.74); 84 5.54 (5.06); 95 0.92 (–0.73 to 2.56)
–1.58 (–4.05 to 0.89)
MD, difference in means.
a Linear regression model adjusting for centre and baseline diagnosis where appropriate.
b The coefficient for the interaction term.
c Likelihood ratio test comparing models including/excluding the interaction term, adjusted for centre and baseline diagnosis.
Reproduced from Hashim et al.2 This is an Open Access article distributed in accordance with the terms of the Creative
Commons Attribution (CC BY 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt and build upon this work, for
commercial use, provided the original work is properly cited. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The table
includes minor additions and formatting changes to the original table.

TABLE 21 Subgroup analyses: Qmax at 12 months

Qmax at 12 months

Trial arm, mean (SD); n

Subgroup-specific Interaction MD
Variable ThuVARP TURP MD (95% CI)a (95% CI)b p-value

Subgroup analyses
Baseline diagnosis
LUTS 18.68 (10.11); 78 23.81 (12.36); 95 –5.11 (–8.53 to –1.69) – 0.189

Urinary retention 21.51 (14.06); 90 23.07 (13.42); 81 1.56 (–5.77 to 2.65) 3.54 (–1.84 to 8.91)

Age (years)

< 70 22.33 (13.41); 85 26.69 (12.62); 99 –5.26 (–9.10 to –1.43) – 0.114

≥ 70 18.00 (11.00); 83 19.33 (11.93); 77 –1.06 (–4.60 to 2.47) 4.17 (–1.09 to 9.43)

32
NIHR Journals Library www.journalslibrary.nihr.ac.uk
 DOI: 10.3310/hta24410 HEALTH TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT 2020 VOL. 24 NO. 41

TABLE 21 Subgroup analyses: Qmax at 12 months (continued )

Qmax at 12 months

Trial arm, mean (SD); n

Subgroup-specific Interaction MD
Variable ThuVARP TURP MD (95% CI)a (95% CI)b p-value

Perioperative prostate size (ml)

Small (< 40) 18.18 (9.87); 78 24.08 (13.13); 73 –6.17 (–9.95 to –2.39) – 0.774c

Medium (40–60) 22.60 (12.69); 42 23.70 (12.85); 57 –1.09 (–6.34 to 4.15) 4.84 (–1.74 to 11.42)

Large (60–80) 20.25 (12.35); 21 23.19 (12.04); 18 0.64 (–8.23 to 9.50) 2.83 (–6.36 to 12.02)

Very large (> 80) 20.43 (20.08); 15 24.68 (18.98); 9 –1.38 (–22.52 to 19.76) 1.64 (–9.84 to 13.13)

Comorbidities at baseline
With 19.17 (12.33); 75 21.02 (11.44); 76 –1.80 (–5.63 to 2.02) – 0.307

Without 21.02 (12.52); 93 25.33 (13.55); 100 –4.91 (–8.67 to –1.15) 2.79 (–2.66 to 8.25)
MD, difference in means.
a Linear regression model adjusting for centre and baseline diagnosis where appropriate.
b The coefficient for the interaction term.
c Likelihood ratio test comparing models including/excluding the interaction term, adjusted for centre and baseline
diagnosis where appropriate.
Reproduced from Hashim et al.2 This is an Open Access article distributed in accordance with the terms of the Creative
Commons Attribution (CC BY 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt and build upon this work, for
commercial use, provided the original work is properly cited. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The table
includes minor additions and formatting changes to the original table.

IPSS treatment difference (ThuVARP – TURP)

Favours ThuVARP Favours TURP

95% CI ITT: multiple imputation

ITT: complete case

95% CI

Per protocol
95% CI

CACE
95% CI

– 2.5 0 2.5
Equivalence margin No difference Equivalence margin

FIGURE 7 Testing equivalence for IPSS.

All sensitivity analyses were in agreement with the results from the main analyses. Adjusting for imbalance
(painful ejaculation) reduced the sample size substantially as those patients with a catheter had not answered
a questionnaire at baseline. The post hoc bootstrap analysis, and log-transformed analyses, conducted to
ensure that the slightly skewed distribution did not affect the outcome, were also in agreement.

© Queen’s Printer and Controller of HMSO 2020. This work was produced by Worthington et al. under the terms of a commissioning contract issued by the Secretary of State for
Health and Social Care. This issue may be freely reproduced for the purposes of private research and study and extracts (or indeed, the full report) may be included in professional
journals provided that suitable acknowledgement is made and the reproduction is not associated with any form of advertising. Applications for commercial reproduction should
33
be addressed to: NIHR Journals Library, National Institute for Health Research, Evaluation, Trials and Studies Coordinating Centre, Alpha House, University of Southampton Science
Park, Southampton SO16 7NS, UK.
 RESULTS

TABLE 22 Sensitivity analyses: IPSS and Qmax – difference between arms

Trial arm, mean (SD)

Difference in meansa
Variable N (TV:TR) ThuVARP TURP (95% CI)

Sensitivity: IPSS symptom score

ITT complete-case analysis 151:159 6.29 (6.22) 6.03 (5.21) 0.43 (–0.78 to 1.64)
Per protocolb 114:156 5.78 (5.63) 5.99 (5.25) –0.04 (1.28 to 1.21)
c
CACE analysis 0.05 (–1.22 to 1.32)
d
Removal of participants 147:157 6.04 (5.84) 5.97 (5.13) 0.26 (–0.92 to 1.44)

Adjusted for baselinee 143:146 6.05 (5.78) 6.07 (5.23) 0.13 (–1.08 to 1.34)

Adjusted for imbalancef 52:67 8.00 (6.71) 7.79 (5.93) 0.28 (–1.98 to 2.53)
g
Surgeon effects 149:157 6.29 (6.26) 6.03 (5.24) 0.44 (–0.76 to 1.65)
h
Post hoc: bootstrap 0.43 (–0.77 to 1.64)

Post hoc: log-transformationi 151:159 1.67 (0.81) 1.69 (0.73) 0.00 (–0.16 to 0.17)
Sensitivity: Qmax level

ITT complete-case analysis 168:176 20.19 (12.43) 23.47 (12.82) –3.42 (–6.10 to –0.73)

Per protocol b
123:172 19.30 (11.01) 23.75 (12.83) –4.61 (–7.39 to –1.83)

CACE analysisc –4.67 (–7.56 to –1.78)

Removal of participantsd 163:173 20.12 (12.19) 23.51 (12.87) –3.47 (–6.16 to –0.77)

Adjusted for baseline e

155:162 19.81 (11.87) 23.39 (12.42) –3.87 (–6.57 to –1.16)

Adjusted for imbalance f

60:80 19.93 (11.16) 23.90 (12.61) –3.95 (–8.07 to 0.17)
g
Surgeon effects 165:175 20.28 (12.46) 23.53 (12.84) –3.44 (–6.11 to –0.78)

Post hoc: bootstraph –3.42 (–6.06 to –0.78)

j
Post hoc: log-transformation 168:176 2.83 (0.61) 2.99 (0.60) –0.17 (–0.29 to –0.04)
ITT, intention to treat; TR, TURP; TV, ThuVARP.
a Adjusted for centre and whether the participant had retention or LUTS at baseline.
b Removing those patients who did not comply with their randomised treatment.
c Unbiased estimates to account for participant crossover.
d Removing participants who found out their allocation prior to completing the 12-month questionnaire.
e Respective baseline measures for IPSS and Qmax.
f Imbalances at baseline by > 10%/0.5 SDs (painful ejaculation).
g A mixed-effects model that includes the surgeon as a random effect and centre as a fixed effect.
h Bootstrap linear regression with 4999 replications.
i Log-transforming (natural log) an adjusted IPSS (IPSS + 1) with new equivalence margin of 0.92.
j Log-transforming (natural log) the Qmax with new equivalence margin of 1.39.
Reproduced from Hashim et al.2 This is an Open Access article distributed in accordance with the terms of the Creative
Commons Attribution (CC BY 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt and build upon this work, for
commercial use, provided the original work is properly cited. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The table
includes minor additions and formatting changes to the original table.

The type of TURP procedure was included as a prespecified subgroup analysis in the trial protocol paper;1
however, given that an interaction term was not possible, the team chose to use it in an exploratory
analysis instead. Figure 9 shows how each of the centres differed in their use of monopolar and
bipolar TURP.

34
NIHR Journals Library www.journalslibrary.nihr.ac.uk
 DOI: 10.3310/hta24410 HEALTH TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT 2020 VOL. 24 NO. 41

Qmax treatment difference (ThuVARP – TURP)

Favours TURP Favours ThuVARP

95% CI ITT: multiple imputation

ITT: complete case

95% CI

Per protocol
95% CI

CACE
95% CI

– 4 ml/second 0 4 ml/second
Equivalence margin No difference Equivalence margin

FIGURE 8 Testing equivalence for Qmax levels.

the TURP procedure (includes conversions)
Number of participants who underwent

80

60

TURP
40 Monopolar
Bipolar

20

0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Trial centre

FIGURE 9 Monopolar and bipolar TURP use across the trial centres.

The IPSS results were equivalent when comparing ThuVARP separately with monopolar TURP and bipolar
TURP. The monopolar technique showed the greatest improvement when looking at Qmax, resulting in
non-equivalence (Table 23).

Looking at the Qmax results, we can see that the results from bipolar TURP versus ThuVARP comparison
included the zero difference in its CI. When comparing monopolar with bipolar directly (Table 24), we can
see that IPSS scores are slightly reduced in patients receiving the bipolar TURP procedure than in those
patients receiving the monopolar procedure, whereas the monopolar technique fared better than the
bipolar technique in terms of Qmax levels. However, the CIs suggested that these observations could have
been a result of chance. These analyses were exploratory and were hypothesis generating rather than
confirmatory.

© Queen’s Printer and Controller of HMSO 2020. This work was produced by Worthington et al. under the terms of a commissioning contract issued by the Secretary of State for
Health and Social Care. This issue may be freely reproduced for the purposes of private research and study and extracts (or indeed, the full report) may be included in professional
journals provided that suitable acknowledgement is made and the reproduction is not associated with any form of advertising. Applications for commercial reproduction should
35
be addressed to: NIHR Journals Library, National Institute for Health Research, Evaluation, Trials and Studies Coordinating Centre, Alpha House, University of Southampton Science
Park, Southampton SO16 7NS, UK.
 RESULTS

TABLE 23 Sensitivity analyses: ThuVARP compared with monopolar and bipolar TURP

Trial arm, mean (SD)

Difference in meansa
Variable N (TV:TR) ThuVARP TURP (95% CI)

Sensitivity: IPSS symptom score

ThuVARP vs. monopolar TURP 113:84 5.81 (5.65) 6.43 (5.78) –0.74 (–2.49 to 1.01)
ThuVARP vs. bipolar TURP 113:72 5.81 (5.65) 5.47 (4.53) 0.92 (–0.75 to 2.59)

Sensitivity: Qmax level

ThuVARP vs. monopolar TURP 121:93 19.09 (10.94) 23.30 (13.49) –5.41 (–9.19 to –1.64)

ThuVARP vs. bipolar TURP 121:79 19.09 (10.94) 24.27 (12.07) –3.67 (–7.38 to 0.05)
TR, TURP; TV, ThuVARP.
a Adjusted for centre and whether the participant had retention or LUTS at baseline.

TABLE 24 Sensitivity analyses: monopolar vs. bipolar TURP

TURP
Difference in meansa
Variable N (BT:MT) Bipolar Monopolar (95% CI)

Baseline diagnosis, n (%)

Baseline diagnosis of LUTS 116:126 52 (45) 68 (54) –
Sensitivity: IPSS symptom score, mean (SD)
Bipolar vs. monopolar TURP 72:84 5.47 (4.53) 6.43 (5.78) –3.66 (–8.38 to 1.06)
Sensitivity: Qmax level, mean (SD)
Bipolar vs. monopolar TURP 79:93 24.27 (12.07) 23.30 (13.49) –3.25 (–15.16 to 8.65)
BT, bipolar TURP; MT, monopolar TURP.
a Adjusted for centre and whether the participant had retention or LUTS at baseline.

Serious adverse events

Pathological findings
Pathology findings (including the weight of the resected prostate) were collected from 3-month CRFs and
were available for 386 (94%) of the randomised patients. Cases of high-grade prostatic intraepithelial
neoplasia (PIN) were excluded from analyses comparing benign and prostate cancer diagnoses. Although
exploratory, our results suggest that participants in the ThuVARP arm were at a 65% lower odds of finding
prostate cancer than those patients in the TURP arm (p = 0.007) (Table 25). This is probably due to the
prostate weight available after resection, which was, on average, 15 ml higher in the TURP arm than in the
ThuVARP arm (p < 0.001).

Looking at this on a treatment-received basis, we can see that the gap between ThuVARP and TURP
becomes wider (Table 26). Conversions from ThuVARP to TURP gave results that were very similar to those
for TURP alone.

Serious adverse events

There were a total of 53 serious adverse events across 41 participants in the ThuVARP arm and 53 adverse
events across 45 participants in the TURP arm.

36
NIHR Journals Library www.journalslibrary.nihr.ac.uk
 DOI: 10.3310/hta24410 HEALTH TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT 2020 VOL. 24 NO. 41

TABLE 25 Pathological findings (intention to treat)

Trial arm

Variable N (TV:TR) ThuVARP TURP Difference (95% CI) p-valuea

Prostate histology

Resection weight (ml), 149:162 7.0 (2.0–15.0) 20.0 (11.0–35.0) –15.4a (–19.3 to –11.5) < 0.001
median (IQR)

Benign, n (%) 193:193 182 (94) 166 (86)

Prostate cancer, n (%) 193:193 10 (5) 25 (13) 0.35b (0.16 to 0.75) 0.007

High-grade PIN, n (%) 193:193 1 (1) 2 (1)

TR, TURP; TV, ThuVARP.
a Linear regression (results were very similar when using non-parametric tests).
b Logistic regression comparing prostate cancer detection with benign histology (excluding high-grade prostatic
intraepithelial neoplasia), adjusted for centre and whether the participant had retention or LUTS at baseline.
Reproduced from Hashim et al.2 This is an Open Access article distributed in accordance with the terms of the Creative
Commons Attribution (CC BY 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt and build upon this work, for
commercial use, provided the original work is properly cited. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The table
includes minor additions and formatting changes to the original table.

TABLE 26 Pathological findings (treatment received)

Trial arm
Conversion Alternative
Variable ThuVARP TURP (TV to TR) procedure

Prostate histology

Resection weight (ml), median (IQR) 4.3 (2.0–10.0) 20.0 (11.4–35.0) 19.0 (10.0–36.0) 13.0 (0.0–26.0)
Benign, n (%) 142 (97) 175 (86) 29 (85) 2 (100)

Prostate cancer, n (%) 4 (3) 27 (13) 4 (12) 0 (0)

High-grade PIN, n (%) 0 (0) 2 (1) 1 (3) 0 (0)

TV, ThuVARP; TR, TURP.

Overall, 20% and 22% of patients in ThuVARP and TURP arms, respectively, suffered from a serious
adverse event (Table 27). Two unrelated deaths occurred during the follow-up period, one in each arm.
In the ThuVARP arm, this occurred 34 days after the operation (bowel ischaemia and subsequent organ
failure) and the post-mortem results confirmed that it was unrelated to treatment. In the TURP arm,
this occurred 298 days after the operation, when the participant died from an acute myocardial infarction.

There is a slightly larger difference between the arms when we look at the actual treatment received,
with 19% of participants receiving ThuVARP suffering a serious adverse event, compared with 23% of
participants receiving TURP (Table 28). Conversions to TURP resulted in fewer serious adverse events, with
only 14% of participants suffering from an event; however, there were very few participants to base this
on and even fewer in the alternative treatment group.

Of the 106 events in total, 39 occurred in participants receiving ThuVARP surgery, 57 occurred in participants
receiving TURP, six occurred in participants receiving a conversion from ThuVARP to TURP and four occurred
in participants receiving an alternative treatment (see Table 28).

© Queen’s Printer and Controller of HMSO 2020. This work was produced by Worthington et al. under the terms of a commissioning contract issued by the Secretary of State for
Health and Social Care. This issue may be freely reproduced for the purposes of private research and study and extracts (or indeed, the full report) may be included in professional
journals provided that suitable acknowledgement is made and the reproduction is not associated with any form of advertising. Applications for commercial reproduction should
37
be addressed to: NIHR Journals Library, National Institute for Health Research, Evaluation, Trials and Studies Coordinating Centre, Alpha House, University of Southampton Science
Park, Southampton SO16 7NS, UK.
 RESULTS

TABLE 27 Serious adverse events by randomisation arm (intention to treat)

Trial arm, n (%)

Variable ThuVARP TURP OR (95% CI) p-value

Number of SAEs reported

0 164 (80) 160 (78)

1 32 (16) 39 (19) 0.93 (0.57 to 1.49)a 0.747

≥2 9 (4) 6 (3)
OR, odds ratio; SAE, serious adverse event.
a Ordinal logistic regression, adjusted for centre and whether the participant had retention or LUTS at baseline.

TABLE 28 Serious adverse events by treatment received

Trial arm, n (%)

Variable ThuVARP TURP Conversion, n (%) Alternative treatment, n (%)

Number of SAEs reported

0 123 (81) 163 (77) 31 (86) 4 (57)

1 22 (15) 43 (20) 4 (11) 2 (29)

≥2 7 (5) 6 (3) 1 (3) 1 (14)

SAE, serious adverse event.

The majority of events were unrelated to treatment (Table 29), with 25 events listed as ‘probably’ related.
Most of these were haematuria (ThuVARP, n = 2; TURP, n = 5), urinary retention (ThuVARP, n = 3; TURP,
n = 4) and infections (ThuVARP, n = 3; TURP, n = 6). An additional six serious adverse events (including four
deaths) were collected after 365 days of follow-up. These have not been included here to avoid potential
bias from differential reporting across sites. All six were confirmed as unrelated or unlikely to be related
to treatment.

TABLE 29 Serious adverse event relationship to treatment by treatment received

Trial arm, n (%)

Variable ThuVARP TURP Conversion, n (%) Alternative treatment, n (%)

Relatedness to surgery
Probably 11 (28) 13 (23) 1 (17) 0 (0)

Possibly 8 (21) 15 (26) 2 (33) 2 (50)

Unlikely 6 (15) 4 (7) 1 (17) 0 (0)

Unrelated 14 (36) 25 (44) 2 (33) 2 (50)

38
NIHR Journals Library www.journalslibrary.nihr.ac.uk
 DOI: 10.3310/hta24410 HEALTH TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT 2020 VOL. 24 NO. 41

Statistical results summary

l Primary analysis results demonstrate that TURP and ThuVARP are equivalent in terms of IPSS at
12 months following treatment, but not in terms of Qmax, with TURP showing additional benefit
over ThuVARP.
l Sensitivity analyses, including a complete-case, a per-protocol and a CACE analysis, demonstrated that
these findings were robust to the statistical assumptions made.
l No differences were observed between TURP and ThuVARP in terms of complications.
l Other surgical outcomes, such as length of hospital stay, transfusion rates and blood levels, were also
very similar between the arms.
l Patient-reported outcomes for urinary symptoms showed no differences between the arms at
12 months.
l Patient-reported outcomes for sexual symptoms showed no differences between the arms at
12 months.
l Quality of life and satisfaction with treatment were high in both arms of the trial, with no evidence to
suggest that one arm was better.
l There was no evidence to suggest any subgroup effects, although these analyses are likely to
be underpowered.
l The number of participants undergoing their randomised procedure differed between the two groups,
with fewer participants randomised to ThuVARP receiving their allocated treatment.
l A post hoc exploratory analysis of the pathology data suggested that those patients in the TURP arm
were more likely to be diagnosed with prostate cancer than those patients in the ThuVARP arm.

© Queen’s Printer and Controller of HMSO 2020. This work was produced by Worthington et al. under the terms of a commissioning contract issued by the Secretary of State for
Health and Social Care. This issue may be freely reproduced for the purposes of private research and study and extracts (or indeed, the full report) may be included in professional
journals provided that suitable acknowledgement is made and the reproduction is not associated with any form of advertising. Applications for commercial reproduction should
39
be addressed to: NIHR Journals Library, National Institute for Health Research, Evaluation, Trials and Studies Coordinating Centre, Alpha House, University of Southampton Science
Park, Southampton SO16 7NS, UK.
 DOI: 10.3310/hta24410 HEALTH TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT 2020 VOL. 24 NO. 41

Chapter 4 Economic evaluation

P arts of this chapter are reproduced from Noble et al.29 This is an Open Access article distributed in
accordance with the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY 4.0) license, which permits
others to distribute, remix, adapt and build upon this work, for commercial use, provided the original work
is properly cited. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The text below includes minor additions
and formatting changes to the original text.

Introduction

The objective of this chapter is to report the within-trial economic evaluation of the UNBLOCS trial,
conducted from randomisation to 12-month follow-up, from two perspectives: an NHS secondary care
perspective and a wider NHS perspective. This economic evaluation is also reported in Noble et al.29
A cost–consequences analysis of ThuVARP versus TURP in men with BPO in relation to QALYs, the IPSS
and Qmax is reported. Furthermore, cost-effectiveness analyses of ThuVARP versus TURP from the two
perspectives in relation to QALYs are reported. Costs are derived from resources used by patients in
relation to the interventions and the use of NHS services in relation to the treatment of LUTS, or urinary
retention secondary to BPO. QALYs are determined from the EuroQol-5-Dimensions, five-level version
(EQ-5D-5L), questionnaire and the cross-walk valuation set.30

Methods

Measurement and valuation of relevant resource use

Resource use was collected from randomisation for 12 months. Data on resource use for this analysis came
from three main sources: trial CRFs, hospital patient-linked information costing systems (PLICS) and
patient-completed questionnaires.

Case report forms were completed by UNBLOCS nurses from the treating hospital and captured the operation,
including time (which was calculated from time of start of resection until the time the participant entered
recovery) and disposable equipment; and the postoperative stay, including complications, returns to theatre
and time spent on different wards (calculated as the number of days from the time leaving recovery). The
complete details of the resources collected are in Table 30.

Informatics or similar departments in all sites were contacted and asked if they would be able to provide
electronic information from PLICS for inpatient stays and day cases in the form of International Classification of
Diseases, Tenth Revision (ICD-10);38 OPCS-4;6 and Healthcare Resource Group (HRG) codes; admission and
discharge dates; and, for outpatient visits and procedures, service codes, HRG/currency codes and attendance
dates. For all centres for which this was possible, a Microsoft Excel spreadsheet containing a list of study
identifiers (IDs) and the dates of randomisation and 12-month follow-up were sent to the on-site study
research nurses. The nurses added NHS and hospital numbers to the study IDs, which were then forwarded
to the relevant contact. Data on all inpatient stays and outpatient attendances between the two given dates
were then added to this spreadsheet and returned to the research nurse, who anonymised the data before
transferring them to the co-ordinating centre. For one centre for which this was not possible, the local principal
investigator manually extracted data on all inpatient stays and outpatient visits from the hospital systems.

All inpatient admissions occurring on the randomisation date were deleted, as were events that, according
to clinician opinion, could not be related to the treatment of LUTS or urinary retention secondary to BPO.
When HRG codes were not supplied, the ICD-1038 and OPCS-46 were used to map the event to a relevant
HRG code.

© Queen’s Printer and Controller of HMSO 2020. This work was produced by Worthington et al. under the terms of a commissioning contract issued by the Secretary of State for
Health and Social Care. This issue may be freely reproduced for the purposes of private research and study and extracts (or indeed, the full report) may be included in professional
journals provided that suitable acknowledgement is made and the reproduction is not associated with any form of advertising. Applications for commercial reproduction should
41
be addressed to: NIHR Journals Library, National Institute for Health Research, Evaluation, Trials and Studies Coordinating Centre, Alpha House, University of Southampton Science
Park, Southampton SO16 7NS, UK.
 ECONOMIC EVALUATION

TABLE 30 Resources collected and their valuation

Resource Unit cost (£) Source of cost

Theatre time 15.70 per minuteb Finance department of a treating hospital

Recovery ward 12.71 per minute Finance department of a treating hospital

c a
Laser capital and reusable equipment 93.61 Manufacturer

Laser consumablesd Varies Manufacturer

TURP capital and reusable equipmente 15.81a Manufacturer

f
TURP consumables Varies Manufacturer
Blood transfusion 498.26 NHS Reference Costs 2016/1731

Ward 360 per day Finance departments of a treating hospital

HDU/ITU 1300 per day Finance departments of a treating hospital

Subsequent inpatient stays Varies NHS Reference Costs 2016/17;31

Curtis and Burns, 201732

Day cases Varies NHS Reference Costs 2016/1731

Outpatient visits Varies NHS Reference Costs 2016/1731

Outpatient procedures Varies NHS Reference Costs 2016/1731

Accident and emergency attendances (no admission) 147.80 NHS Reference Costs 2016/1731

GP surgery visit 29g,h Curtis and Burns, 201732

GP home visit 89.44g,h,i Curtis, 201333

GP telephone call 14.60 Curtis and Burns, 201732

GP nurse visit 5.53h,j Curtis and Burns, 201732

District nurse visit 38.68i Curtis and Burns, 201534

Community continence nurse visit 83 NHS Reference Costs 2016/1731

NHS 111 call 12.26 Pope et al., 201735

Car mileage 0.45 HM Revenue and Customs36

Community-based urology service visit 103 NHS Reference Costs 2016/1731

Medication Varies NHS Drug Tariff 37
HDU, high-dependency unit; ITU, intensive therapy unit.
a Costs are derived from the number of operations performed, the cost from the manufacturer and the lifespan of
the equipment.
b The theatre unit cost of £15.70 per minute is an adjusted cost to avoid double-counting equipment. This adjusted cost is
allocated to initial theatre time. The unadjusted unit cost of £17 per minute is employed for return-to-theatre cases.
c The laser capital and reusable equipment cost includes the laser machine, working element, cystoscope, bridge,
telescope, light lead, sheath, outer sheath, visual obturator and laser goggles.
d The laser consumables cost comprises laser fibres, biopsy forceps and evacuator kits.
e The TURP capital and reusable equipment cost comprises the TURP generator, working element, telescope, light lead,
inner sheath, outer rotating sheath, bipolar lead and visual obturator.
f The TURP consumables cost comprises the loop electrodes, roller electrodes, biopsy forceps and evacuator kits.
g Excluding direct care staff costs.
h Excluding qualification costs.
i The Hospital & Community Health Services index was used to inflate costs to 2016/17 prices.32
j Based on the assumption of a 9.22-minute consultation.
Reproduced from Noble et al.29 This is an Open Access article distributed in accordance with the terms of the Creative
Commons Attribution (CC BY 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt and build upon this work, for
commercial use, provided the original work is properly cited. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The table
includes minor amendments and formatting changes to the original table.

42
NIHR Journals Library www.journalslibrary.nihr.ac.uk
 DOI: 10.3310/hta24410 HEALTH TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT 2020 VOL. 24 NO. 41

The resource use questionnaire was administered to participants at 3- and 12-month follow-up. Either it was
posted or nurses provided it to the participant at clinic to be completed in their own time and then returned
by post. The questionnaires were used to collect information on NHS and private community-based health-care
use (e.g. GP visits, district nurse visits), other NHS hospital health-care use, medications, Personal Social
Services resource use in addition to travel, time off work/usual activities and any other expenses resulting
from their treatment.

All resource use and the unit costs used to value the resources are given in Table 30. The 2016/17 costs
excluding VAT (value-added tax) were used to value the resource use.

Any costs given in an earlier year were upgraded using the Hospital and Community Health Services Index.

A form of microcosting was used to cost the operation and the initial hospital stay. The trust finance
department of one of the participating hospitals and equipment manufacturers were approached to obtain
values for the initial NHS resources used. Any equipment that differed between the two procedures was
costed. For ThuVARP this included the cost of the laser itself and for TURP this included the cost of the
generator. For both procedures, the costs of any consumables and working elements required for the
operations were included. To obtain a cost per procedure for the capital equipment, an ‘annual equivalent
cost’, which took into account capital charges/depreciation over the useful life of the equipment,39 was
calculated for the two operations. The annual maintenance costs for the laser machine and the generator were
then added to these respective costs. These costs were divided by the number of TURP procedures (n = 260)
carried out in a single operating theatre in 1 year. If one procedure had been converted to another, then both
capital equipment costs were assigned to the participant. The cost per minute of a medi room (a room in which
patients are admitted to prior to surgery and return to following surgery) was used to value time in recovery.

The NHS Reference Costs 2016/1731 were used to value inpatient stays and outpatient visits and procedures.
The elective inpatient unit cost related to the relevant HRG code was used. For outpatient procedures, the
unit cost relating to the service code and HRG code for each procedure was used. A consultant-led unit
cost relating to the relevant service and currency code was used for outpatient appointments. When the
outpatient currency code was missing, a value based on the unit cost for that service code for total
outpatient attendances was applied.

Outcome data collection and valuation

The primary economic outcome in the UNBLOCS trial is the QALY as recommended by NICE. The EQ-5D-5L
was given to participants at baseline and at the 3- and 12-month follow-up to either complete at clinic or
take home and return by post. At the 6-week follow-up, the EQ-5D-5L was administered by post. The
participants’ self-reported EQ-5D-5L values at baseline and at the 6-week and 3- and 12-month follow-up
were transformed into utility scores using the cross-walk valuation set as currently recommended by NICE.
QALYs for each participant are calculated from the utility scores using the area under the curve approach,
and this takes into account any deaths that have occurred during the study.40 The co-primary outcomes of
the effectiveness analysis, IPSS and Qmax, are also evaluated in the cost–consequences analysis.

Data cleaning and missing costs and outcomes

The health economists were blinded to the randomisation allocation until all of the data cleaning and valuation
of resources had taken place. Simple imputation was used for a few missing data items occurring during the
operation. If the start of resection time was missing (n = 35), then the anaesthetic start time was used. If the
time leaving recovery ward or discharge time (for day cases) was missing (n = 52), then a 3-hour duration was
used, based on information given by one of the hospitals. If the type of laser fibre used was missing (n = 5),
then a reusable fibre was assumed; if the number of laser fibres was missing (n = 14), then one was assumed.
In relation to the missing items from the resource use questionnaires, if the questionnaire had been returned
and an item was missing, then it was assumed that no resource had been used. In relation to medications, if a
dose was missing, then the usual dose was obtained from the British National Formulary.41 In relation to
incontinence pads/pads costs, the cost of the most commonly used pad was imputed.

© Queen’s Printer and Controller of HMSO 2020. This work was produced by Worthington et al. under the terms of a commissioning contract issued by the Secretary of State for
Health and Social Care. This issue may be freely reproduced for the purposes of private research and study and extracts (or indeed, the full report) may be included in professional
journals provided that suitable acknowledgement is made and the reproduction is not associated with any form of advertising. Applications for commercial reproduction should
43
be addressed to: NIHR Journals Library, National Institute for Health Research, Evaluation, Trials and Studies Coordinating Centre, Alpha House, University of Southampton Science
Park, Southampton SO16 7NS, UK.
 ECONOMIC EVALUATION

Multiple imputation by chained equations was used. The model included baseline, 6-week and 3- and
12-month utility variables, trial arm, baseline diagnosis of LUTS or urinary retention, baseline comorbidities,
age and centre. The typical approach is that the number of imputations should surpass the percentage of
incomplete cases; thus, 54 individual imputations were conducted and combined using Rubin’s rules27 in
Stata 15.1 in relation to both the secondary care and the NHS perspective. The randomisation seed of
12678 was employed to create reproducible imputations.

Analysis
The economic analyses are conducted using an intention-to-treat approach, that is, analysing participants
in the arm to which they were randomised, irrespective of any post-randomisation changes. As the trial
period does not fall beyond 1 year, no costs and effects are discounted. No modelling has been specified
within this evaluation, as the work is seen as a definitive trial, and experience has shown that most of the
uncertainty in relation to cost differences are captured within the first 12 months, the duration of this trial.

The cost of each item of resource used during the 12 months of follow-up is evaluated as the resource use
(e.g. number of minutes in theatre) multiplied by its unit cost. The total cost for each resource category
(e.g. theatre equipment, subsequent inpatient stays), the NHS secondary care and NHS perspective for
each individual patient was calculated as the sum of the cost of resource use items. The mean resource use
and costs were estimated and presented by trial arm for each resource use category (e.g. outpatient visits,
equipment costs). The mean EQ-5D-5L domain scores by time point were estimated and presented by arm.
The method of seemingly unrelated regressions, which accounts for the correlation between costs and
QALYs, was used to estimate adjusted mean costs and QALYs and the differences in adjusted mean costs,
QALYs (and their associated 95% CIs) between the trial arms in relation to secondary care NHS costs and
NHS costs. Costs and QALYs were adjusted for the stratification variables used in the randomisation
process [centre and patient eligibility classification at baseline (bothersome LUTS or urinary retention)].

Quality-adjusted life-years were adjusted for the stratification variables and baseline utility.42

Cost–consequences analysis
A cost–consequences analysis was conducted in which adjusted secondary care costs and all NHS costs
were compared with adjusted QALYs, IPSS and Qmax scores.

Cost-effectiveness analysis
Cost-effectiveness analyses were conducted in which the secondary care NHS costs and all NHS costs
were compared with QALYs. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios were created using seemingly unrelated
regressions if neither treatment was dominant (i.e. less expensive and more effective). Seemingly unrelated
regression outputs were used to estimate the incremental net monetary benefit (INMB) statistic at the
standard NICE willingness to pay threshold of £20,000 per QALY. Cost-effectiveness acceptability curves,
which show the probability that ThuVARP is the cost-effective option compared with TURP at different
willingness-to-pay-per-QALY thresholds, were created to explore uncertainty.

Sensitivity analyses
A series of one-way sensitivity analyses were conducted on the NHS secondary perspective analysis
(as this contained the most complete data and the greatest cost drivers) to test the robustness of different
parameter estimates and assumptions made in relation to resource use and costs. The sensitivity analyses
included a complete-case analysis; the exclusion of prostate cancer-related hospital resource use; the
addition of TURP capital costs to those patients randomised to ThuVARP to account for TURP equipment
that needed to be available because of laser equipment failure; the application of the average times of
theatre for each arm from the last 25% of cases in each centre to all other respective cases in order to
examine the learning curve; the exclusion of post-recovery ward costs for those participants who underwent
a ThuVARP procedure in the five centres where day-case TURP procedures were not conducted to examine

44
NIHR Journals Library www.journalslibrary.nihr.ac.uk
 DOI: 10.3310/hta24410 HEALTH TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT 2020 VOL. 24 NO. 41

the cost implication of being able to conduct the ThuVARP procedure as a day case; the exclusion of the
capital equipment costs from both operations to reflect the fact that manufacturers often give capital
equipment free provided that enough consumables are purchased; and adjustment for the number of
people who would have had the operation in 1 year.

Results

Complete resource use and cost data for the secondary care perspective were obtained for 385 participants
(95% of those patients randomised who did not withdraw their data). In the case of the NHS perspective,
the completeness of the data declined to 47%. The resource use questionnaires administered at 3 and
6 months were not completed adequately to allow a patient or a societal perspective to be conducted.
The number of complete cases from a patient perspective would have been 127. The number of complete
cases and the means and costs of these resource use items are given in Appendix 1. EQ-5D-5L data were
complete for 89% of participants at baseline, 82% of participants at 6 weeks, 78% of participants at
3 months and 81% of participants at 12 months; however, because there was a great deal of intermittent
missingness, complete QALY data were obtained for only 212 (52%) participants. The seemingly unrelated
regression analyses were conducted on all randomised participants who did not withdraw consent for their
data to be used (n = 407).

In terms of resources used (Table 31), the ThuVARP procedure took, on average, 21 minutes longer than
the TURP procedure. Participants in the TURP arm spent longer in recovery (14 minutes) and they spent
more time in high dependency units/intensive therapy units, and they had slightly more inpatient stays
and outpatient visits and slightly fewer day cases. Participants in the TURP arm also had slightly more
community-based health service contacts and medications.

In the secondary care analysis, the total adjusted mean costs in the ThuVARP arm were slightly higher
(£4252) than those in the TURP arm (£4244), a cost difference of just £9 (see Table 33). The higher cost
of the time in theatre has, to some extent, been offset by the higher cost of disposable equipment in the
TURP arm and the greater use in the TURP arm of specific resources outlined above. In the NHS analysis,
this cost difference had decreased slightly to £4 as a result of the slightly greater community care NHS use
among participants in the TURP arm.

The EQ-5D-5L domain scores (Table 32) show an improvement (i.e. the mean score decreases) between
baseline and 12 months in both arms, with the exception in the ThuVARP arm of mobility and self-care.

Participants who had complete QALY data had a similar number of adjusted mean QALYs (0.86, 95% CI
0.83 to 0.89 in the TURP arm and 0.84, 95% CI 0.81 to 0.87 in the ThuVARP arm). For the multiple
imputation analysis, this was still the case (0.84 TURP vs. 0.83 ThuVARP) (Table 33); the difference is
equivalent to an extra 4 days of perfect health. TURP therefore weakly dominates ThuVARP in that it is
very slightly more effective and less costly, but this could be a result of chance. This is also the case for the
two primary outcomes.

No incremental cost-effectiveness ratios were created because TURP weakly dominated ThuVARP. The
INMB at a threshold of £20,000 per QALY in relation to the secondary care perspective was –£236.24
(95% CI –£891.96 to £419.48) and in relation to the NHS perspective was –£231.57 (95% CI –£892.46
to £429.32). Figure 10 illustrates the cost-effectiveness acceptability curves for the two perspectives and
shows that, at the willingness-to-pay threshold of £20,000 per QALY, the probability that ThuVARP was
the cost-effective treatment compared with TURP was 24% for the NHS secondary care perspective and
25% for the NHS perspective.

© Queen’s Printer and Controller of HMSO 2020. This work was produced by Worthington et al. under the terms of a commissioning contract issued by the Secretary of State for
Health and Social Care. This issue may be freely reproduced for the purposes of private research and study and extracts (or indeed, the full report) may be included in professional
journals provided that suitable acknowledgement is made and the reproduction is not associated with any form of advertising. Applications for commercial reproduction should
45
be addressed to: NIHR Journals Library, National Institute for Health Research, Evaluation, Trials and Studies Coordinating Centre, Alpha House, University of Southampton Science
Park, Southampton SO16 7NS, UK.
 46
NIHR Journals Library www.journalslibrary.nihr.ac.uk

ECONOMIC EVALUATION
TABLE 31 Resource use and costs by category

Trial arm

ThuVARP TURP

Resource category n Mean resource use (SD) Mean cost (SD) (£) n Mean resource use (SD) Mean cost (SD) (£)

Theatre time (minutes) 191 82.48 (33.57) 1283.08 (522.39) 196 61.50 (28.57) 958.55 (453.16)

Recovery ward (minutes) 191 143.97 (138.43) 1789.24 (1465.17) 196 157.58 (170.75) 1928.45 (1736.43)
Laser reusable equipment (number of uses) 203 0.93 (0.26) 85.70 (24.27) 204 0 0.00

Laser consumables (number of consumables) 202 2.23 (0.88) 42.02 (21.94) 204 0 0.00

TURP reusable equipment (number of uses) 203 0.24 (0.43) 4.55 (8.20) 204 0.98 (0.14) 18.50 (2.73)

TURP consumables (number of consumables) 203 0.42 (0.83) 50.82 (99.62) 204 2.54 (0.72) 218.98 (91.75)

Blood transfusion (number of units) 203 0.00 0.00 204 0.01 (0.70) 2.44 (34.89)

Ward (days) 203 1.55 (1.21) 559.63 (434.74) 204 1.67 (1.43) 601.81 (514.37)

HDU/ITU (days) 203 0.01 (0.07) 6.40 (91.24) 203 0.02 (0.28) 25.62 (364.97)
Subsequent inpatient stays (number of stays) 203 0.064 (0.26) 176.84 (789.78) 204 0.078 (0.32) 230.26 (1188.75)

Day cases (number of cases) 203 0.28 (0.66) 111.37 (281.49) 204 0.24 (0.48) 99.48 (227.05)

Outpatient visits (number of visits) 203 1.18 (1.73) 125.70 (177.58) 204 1.29 (1.72) 143.23 (194.12)

Outpatient procedures (number of procedures) 203 0.26 (0.56) 33.05 (71.75) 204 0.25 (0.61) 32.20 (76.04)

Secondary care NHS costs (unadjusted) 190 4274.33 (2033.97) 195 4241.02 (2372.14)

Inpatient stays at other NHS hospitals (number of stays) 144 0.00 (0.00) 0.00 (0.00) 151 0.01 (0.11) 6.93 (60.98)
Park, Southampton SO16 7NS, UK.
be addressed to: NIHR Journals Library, National Institute for Health Research, Evaluation, Trials and Studies Coordinating Centre, Alpha House, University of Southampton Science
journals provided that suitable acknowledgement is made and the reproduction is not associated with any form of advertising. Applications for commercial reproduction should
Health and Social Care. This issue may be freely reproduced for the purposes of private research and study and extracts (or indeed, the full report) may be included in professional
© Queen’s Printer and Controller of HMSO 2020. This work was produced by Worthington et al. under the terms of a commissioning contract issued by the Secretary of State for

DOI: 10.3310/hta24410
Trial arm

ThuVARP TURP

Resource category n Mean resource use (SD) Mean cost (SD) (£) n Mean resource use (SD) Mean cost (SD) (£)

Outpatient visits at other NHS hospitals (number of visits) 144 1.12 (1.70) 21.52 (118.86) 151 0.71 (1.48) 7.53 (35.46)

A&E visits (number of visits) 139 0.09 (0.53) 12.76 (78.54) 145 0.08 (0.41) 11.21 (60.55)

Face-to-face GP contacts (number of contacts) 128 0.57 (1.66) 16.54 (48.10) 136 0.79 (1.85) 24.59 (59.90)

HEALTH TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT 2020 VOL. 24 NO. 41

Telephone calls with GP (number of calls) 116 0.16 (0.57) 2.27 (8.30) 119 0.33 (1.47) 4.78 (21.51)
District nurse visit (number of visit) 117 0.15 (0.98) 5.62 (37.76) 122 0.16 (0.53) 6.02 (20.52)

Community-based health service contacts (number of contacts) 110 0.12 (0.60) 0.65 (3.33) 117 0.27 (1.26) 2.63 (12.42)

Medications (number of medications) 123 0.03 (0.25) 9.11 (40.68) 138 0.05 (0.33) 9.68 (45.25)

NHS costs (unadjusted) 88 4198.61 (2188.11) 103 3930.59 (1969.54)

A&E, accident and emergency; HDU, high-dependency unit; ITU, intensive therapy unit.
Adapted from Noble et al.29 This is an Open Access article distributed in accordance with the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY 4.0) license, which permits others to
distribute, remix, adapt and build upon this work, for commercial use, provided the original work is properly cited. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The table includes minor
amendments and formatting changes to the original table.
47
 48
NIHR Journals Library www.journalslibrary.nihr.ac.uk

ECONOMIC EVALUATION
TABLE 32 Mean unadjusted EQ-5D-5L domain scores by trial arm

Score, mean (n)

Baseline 6 weeks 3 months 12 months

Domain ThuVARP TURP ThuVARP TURP ThuVARP TURP ThuVARP TURP

Mobility 1.47 (186) 1.47 (184) 1.49 (169) 1.37 (169) 1.45 (155) 1.40 (164) 1.54 (159) 1.38 (170)

Self-care 1.10 (187) 1.17 (185) 1.17 (169) 1.11 (168) 1.10 (157) 1.09 (165) 1.15 (159) 1.09 (171)
Usual activity 1.57 (184) 1.57 (185) 1.61 (165) 1.54 (170) 1.42 (156) 1.34 (163) 1.42 (159) 1.34 (171)

Pain/discomfort 1.87 (185) 1.96 (183) 1.64 (169) 1.68 (170) 1.53 (156) 1.50 (162) 1.47 (158) 1.46 (169)

Anxiety/depression 1.44 (187) 1.51 (183) 1.33 (169) 1.40 (169) 1.29 (156) 1.29 (164) 1.25 (159) 1.28 (170)

TABLE 33 Cost–consequences results

Trial arm, adjusted, mean (95% Cl)

Variable n (TV:TR) ThuVARP TURP Adjusted difference in means (95% Cl)

QALY 203:204 0.83 (0.81 to 0.85) 0.84 (0.82 to 0.86) –0.01 (–0.04 to 0.01)

IPSS 197:199 6.43 (6.79) 6.26 (5.79) 0.28 (–0.92 to 1.49)

Qmax level 197:199 20.16 (16.88) 23.24 (13.28) –3.12 (–5.79 to –0.45)
NHS secondary care costs 203:204 £4252.92 (£3992.29 to £4513.54) £4244.12 (£3985.12 to £4503.11) £8.80 (–£358.64 to £376.24)

NHS costs 203:204 £4309.45 (£4046.08 to £4572.82) £4305.23 (£4043.75 to £4566.71) £4.22 (–£366.60 to £375.04)
TV, ThuVARP; TR, TURP.
All variables are adjusted for centre and baseline diagnosis. Additionally, QALYs were adjusted for baseline score.
 DOI: 10.3310/hta24410 HEALTH TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT 2020 VOL. 24 NO. 41

(a)
1.0
0.9

Probability that intervention

0.8
0.7

is cost-effective
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0.0
0 20 40 60 80 100
Willingness-to-pay threshold (£000)

(b)
1.0
0.9
Probability that intervention

0.8
0.7
is cost-effective

0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0.0
0 20 40 60 80 100
Willingness-to-pay threshold (£000)

FIGURE 10 Cost-effectiveness acceptability curves from (a) an NHS secondary care perspective; and (b) an NHS
perspective.

The sensitivity analyses (Table 34) show the initial results to be robust; only when costing ThuVARP as
day-case surgery did ThuVARP have a positive INMB (£98.95) at a threshold of £20,000 per QALY.

Discussion

The total mean secondary care costs in the ThuVARP arm were £9 higher than those costs in the TURP arm,
which reduced to £4 when all NHS costs were included; however, this could be down to chance. A slightly
higher QALY score in the TURP arm meant that weak dominance was shown for both perspectives.

Strengths
The use of PLICS to obtain information on follow-up outpatient visits (including procedures) and inpatient
stays meant that these data can be assumed to be complete, and it is likely that more complete information
was obtained this way than would have been the case through a medical note review. It was also less

© Queen’s Printer and Controller of HMSO 2020. This work was produced by Worthington et al. under the terms of a commissioning contract issued by the Secretary of State for
Health and Social Care. This issue may be freely reproduced for the purposes of private research and study and extracts (or indeed, the full report) may be included in professional
journals provided that suitable acknowledgement is made and the reproduction is not associated with any form of advertising. Applications for commercial reproduction should
49
be addressed to: NIHR Journals Library, National Institute for Health Research, Evaluation, Trials and Studies Coordinating Centre, Alpha House, University of Southampton Science
Park, Southampton SO16 7NS, UK.
 50
NIHR Journals Library www.journalslibrary.nihr.ac.uk

ECONOMIC EVALUATION
TABLE 34 Sensitivity analyses

Adjusted, mean (95% CI) Incremental, mean (95% CI)

INMB (£) at £20,000/QALY
Trial arm na Costsb (£) QALYsb Costs (£) QALYs ICER (£/QALY) (95% CI)
Complete-case analysis

ThuVARP 75 4085.53 (3735.04 to 4436.02) 0.84 (0.81 to 0.87) ThuVARP –1185.53 (–2111.18 to –259.87)
dominated by
TURP 77 3528.74 (3182.88 to 3874.61) 0.87 (0.84 to 0.90) 556.79 (61.94 to 1051.63) –0.03 (–0.072 to 0.009) TURP

The exclusion of prostate cancer-related hospital resource use

ThuVARP 203 4192.06 (3934.95 to 4449.16) 0.83 (0.81 to 0.85) £2270.32d –215.93 (–883.15 to 451.29)

TURP 204 4219.71 (3963.99 to 4475.43) 0.84 (0.82 to 0.86) –27.65 (–390.65 to 335.35) –0.01 (–0.04 to 0.01)
Application of the average times of theatre from the last 25% of cases by arm in each centre, all other casesc

ThuVARP 183 4252.56 (3986.43 to 4518.70) 0.83 (0.81 to 0.85) ThuVARP –1382.08 (–2038.85 to –725.31)
dominated by
TURP 185 4179.60 (3915.71 to 4443.49) 0.84 (0.82 to 0.86) 72.96 (–301.50 to 447.42) –0.01 (–0.04 to 0.02) TURP

ThuVARP costed as a day case

ThuVARP 203 3909.32 (3654.55 to 4164.09) 0.83 (0.81 to 0.85)

TURP 204 4244.57 (3988.76 to 4500.39) 0.84 (0.82 to 0.86) –335.25 (–696.05 to 25.54) –0.01 (–0.04 to 0.01) 28,375.12 98.95 (–546.90 to 744.81)

Excluding the cost of the laser machine and TURP generator

ThuVARP 203 4186.80 (3927.69 to 4445.91) 0.83 (0.81 to 0.85) 4534.61d –175.55 (–832.10 to 481.00)

TURP 204 4238.27 (3979.01 to 4497.53) 0.84 (0.82 to 0.86) –51.47 (–418.20 to 315.26) –0.01 (–0.04 to 0.01)
Park, Southampton SO16 7NS, UK.
be addressed to: NIHR Journals Library, National Institute for Health Research, Evaluation, Trials and Studies Coordinating Centre, Alpha House, University of Southampton Science
journals provided that suitable acknowledgement is made and the reproduction is not associated with any form of advertising. Applications for commercial reproduction should
Health and Social Care. This issue may be freely reproduced for the purposes of private research and study and extracts (or indeed, the full report) may be included in professional
© Queen’s Printer and Controller of HMSO 2020. This work was produced by Worthington et al. under the terms of a commissioning contract issued by the Secretary of State for

DOI: 10.3310/hta24410
Adjusted, mean (95% CI) Incremental, mean (95% CI)
INMB (£) at £20,000/QALY
Trial arm na Costsb (£) QALYsb Costs (£) QALYs ICER (£/QALY) (95% CI)

Capital and reusable equipment costs based on 100 uses

ThuVARP 203 4400.13 (4137.97 to 4662.29) 0.83 (0.81 to 0.85) ThuVARP

dominated by
TURP 204 4278.79 (4018.28 to 4539.30) 0.84 (0.82 to 0.86) 121.34 (–247.22 to 489.91) –0.01 (–0.04 to 0.01) TURP –343.87 (–986.70 to 298.96)

Capital and reusable equipment costs based on 500 uses

ThuVARP 203 4209.23 (3949.04 to 4469.42) 0.83 (0.81 to 0.85) 2671.38d

HEALTH TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT 2020 VOL. 24 NO. 41

TURP 204 4239.92 (3981.04 to 4498.79) 0.84 (0.82 to 0.86) –30.69 (–398.49 to 337.12) –0.01 (–0.04 to 0.01) –199.04 (–849.47 to 451.38)

The need for TURP equipment to be available because of failures in ThuVARP equipment

ThuVARP 203 4261.36 (4003.38 to 4519.33) 0.83 (0.81 to 0.85) ThuVARP

dominated by
TURP 204 4243.68 (3983.94 to 4503.43) 0.84 (0.82 to 0.86) 17.68 (–348.73 to 384.08) –0.01 (–0.04 to 0.01) TURP –268.38 (–910.59 to 373.83)

ICER, incremental cost-effectiveness ratio.

a Including only participants for whom we have complete cost and QALY information.
b Adjusted for the minimisation variables of the randomisation process: study centre and baseline diagnosis. Additionally, QALYs were adjusted for baseline score.
c One centre was excluded from this analysis as the last 25% of the operations in one of the arms had missing data for time of operation.
d The ICER is misleading because it is in the south-west quadrant of the cost-effectiveness plane.
51
 ECONOMIC EVALUATION

burdensome on the research nurses. Detailed data collection during the operation meant that a form of
microcosting to establish the difference between the two operations could be used.

Limitations
In relation to the use of PLICS, the lack of diagnosis codes in the outpatients’ information may have meant
an overestimate of the number of urological appointments related to the treatment of LUTS or urinary
retention secondary to BPO; however, this would have been the same in both trial arms. There may have
been an underestimate of uncertainty around the theatre costs resulting from the use of simple imputation
methods. Resection time missingness did not vary by arm. Missingness of recovery time is slightly higher for
TURP (34 vs. 24), which could have led to a slight overestimate of the costs in the TURP arm. Equipment
was costed using a bipolar list of TURP equipment, as this was the most common procedure. Even if the
monopolar fixed equipment cost per procedure had been double that of the bipolar equipment (£15.64),
this would not have had a significant effect on the results.

There is uncertainty with the NHS analysis. The number of complete cost cases was < 50% and the
percentage of complete cases differed by arm; furthermore, the unadjusted NHS costs were lower than
the secondary care perspective costs, potentially a reflection of healthier participants completing more
of the resource use questions. Although the results using multiple imputation showed that the difference
between the two arms diminished because of the higher number of community-based contacts that was
reflected in community-based resources use, the results from the NHS perspective need to be treated with
caution compared with those from the NHS secondary care perspective. The resource use questions were
in a separate questionnaire, and therefore perhaps less likely to have been completed than if they had
been in the main trial questionnaire. The need to have additional questions to have a wider-than-NHS
perspective may have led to non-completion. Additionally, because of previous research,43 the participants
had been given a resource use log to complete throughout the study to act as an aide-memoire, but they
may have felt that they were being asked to do the same thing twice. It was therefore not appropriate
to conduct an analysis from a patient or societal perspective as originally planned because of the
incompleteness of the data.

Conclusions
The results indicate that, from an NHS secondary care perspective, participants in the ThuVARP arm had
slightly higher costs and fewer QALYs than those in the TURP arm, but these differences were consistent
with chance. At a willingness-to-pay threshold of £20,000 per QALY, there is only a 24% probability that
ThuVARP is the cost-effective intervention compared with TURP.

52
NIHR Journals Library www.journalslibrary.nihr.ac.uk
 DOI: 10.3310/hta24410 HEALTH TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT 2020 VOL. 24 NO. 41

Chapter 5 Qualitative study

Introduction

Qualitative methods are increasingly being used to develop a thorough understanding of the views and
experiences of patients involved in RCTs44 and to provide an insight into the patient experience that could
be missed when using quantitative measures alone.45 It is reported that successful clinical outcome may
not necessarily equate to patient satisfaction.46 Thus, it is important to gain an insight into the meaning
attributed to success, satisfaction and outcomes when patients discuss their experiences. The qualitative
study nested within the UNBLOCS trial explored participants’ views of their symptom experience and
outcomes from the interventions. The specific aims were to investigate the participants’ experiences of:

l LUTS prior to trial participation

l the intervention
l the recovery period
l the outcome from intervention.

The qualitative study was included as a vital component of the trial to contextualise the quantitative findings
and provide greater understanding of the experiential difference between the two treatment options.

Methods

Recruitment and sampling

All trial participants who had consented at baseline to being approached by a qualitative researcher were
identified, and potential interviewees were purposively sampled to represent both surgical interventions,
both presentations for surgery (LUTS and urinary retention) and the varied geographical areas involved in the
study. Researchers contacted participants by telephone to explain the study and participants then received a
specific information leaflet describing the qualitative study by post. Written informed consent was sought in
advance of the interview and a convenient time was arranged for it to take place. Forty-four participants
were invited to take part and 37 took part in an interview. The seven study participants who declined to
take part in an interview provided reasons for this, including preferring not to be interviewed, having
difficulty hearing over the telephone, having poor health and considering the interviews too personal.
As study participants were already involved in the main trial, we did not experience many difficulties in
making contact as current contact details were well documented. We took a proactive approach and
varied the times of day to make calls as well as making repeat calls where initial contact had failed.

Interviews
Participants were interviewed on one occasion between 3 and 6 months following surgery. This was
deemed a suitable time frame for the participants’ recovery to have stabilised but also for their recall of
experiences to be optimised. A topic guide (see Appendix 2) was developed to explore the key qualitative
aims and this was pilot tested during initial interviews and amended iteratively as interviews progressed to
ensure all newly emerging elements of the patient experience were explored. The questions in the topic
guide were open-ended and followed a common structure to explore all issues of relevance. Exploration
of the study aims and issues newly emerging were investigated to provide a comprehensive understanding
of the patients’ perspective. Participants were interviewed from all of the seven sites included in the
study and only those participants from the Bristol site were interviewed face to face. Participants were
purposefully sampled to ensure balance in the presenting symptoms experienced, LUTS and urinary
retention, in order to reflect the breadth of indications for surgery. Interviews were conducted between

© Queen’s Printer and Controller of HMSO 2020. This work was produced by Worthington et al. under the terms of a commissioning contract issued by the Secretary of State for
Health and Social Care. This issue may be freely reproduced for the purposes of private research and study and extracts (or indeed, the full report) may be included in professional
journals provided that suitable acknowledgement is made and the reproduction is not associated with any form of advertising. Applications for commercial reproduction should
53
be addressed to: NIHR Journals Library, National Institute for Health Research, Evaluation, Trials and Studies Coordinating Centre, Alpha House, University of Southampton Science
Park, Southampton SO16 7NS, UK.
 QUALITATIVE STUDY

July 2015 and January 2017. The interviews lasted between 20–60 minutes. Participants were recruited
until data saturation was achieved and no further themes were emerging.

Analysis of the interviews

All of the interviews were audio-recorded and transcribed verbatim, for which consent had been provided.
Transcripts were prepared in parallel with data collection, and analyses were conducted on an ongoing
basis for emerging findings to inform the focus of future interviews. Transcripts were read and re-read
for familiarisation, and a coding frame was devised to thematically analyse their content.47 Transcript
data were imported into the software package NVivo 10 (QSR International, Warrington, UK) to facilitate
formal electronic coding and data management. Data were coded according to the framework identifying
themes and subthemes to highlight patterns within the data of relevance to the research aims. Data were
continuously coded until data saturation was reached, at which point very few new codes were emerging.48
Table 35 describes the key topic areas explored during the interviews.

Results

In total, 37 participants aged between 61 and 83 years (median age 70 years) were interviewed (Table 36).
Of these participants, 19 had undergone ThuVARP and 18 had undergone TURP. Of these participants,
19 had presented with urinary retention and 18 had experienced LUTS; however, at least five of those
participants presenting with retention had also experienced various forms of LUTS over the years.

TABLE 35 Key topic areas explored following ThuVARP or TURP

Topic area Areas of investigation

LUTS/retention experience Symptoms prior to surgery

Symptom impact

Use of urinary management aids, medications

Health-seeking drivers
Expectations for outcome

Perioperative experience Physical health surrounding hospital admission

Psychological health surrounding hospital admission

Experience of surgery and hospital stay

Complications from surgery

Short-term postoperative experience Initial recovery period symptom experience

Impact/return to usual activities

Symptom improvement

Unresolved/new symptoms

Outcome Symptoms following surgery

Changes in symptoms through recovery period

Impact on daily life and comparison with pre-surgical period

Factors influencing recovery

Satisfaction with surgery

Comparison with expectations

Discontent with surgery

Suggestions for overall improvement of experience

54
NIHR Journals Library www.journalslibrary.nihr.ac.uk
 DOI: 10.3310/hta24410 HEALTH TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT 2020 VOL. 24 NO. 41

TABLE 36 Characteristics of participants in the qualitative study

Trial arm

Characteristic ThuVARP TURP

Centre (n)
1 6 6
2 2 3
3 3 2
4 2 2
5 4 0
6 2 3
7 0 2
Age range (years) 61–83 64–82
Presenting symptoms (n)
LUTS 10 8
a
Retention 9 10
a Five participants had also experienced LUTS.

Following the analysis of data, overarching themes were identified that reflected the participants’ experience
and journey to recovery. Within these themes, perspectives on satisfaction were embedded. As the
qualitative team had been unblinded to the randomised procedure, analyses were also undertaken with this
knowledge in order to identify if any patterns emerged according to procedure. Figure 11 shows the overall
conceptual framework devised to summarise the themes identified in the qualitative study according to stage
of participants’ journey.

A disrupted
Urinary life Management Undergoing
retention of symptoms surgery
Physical
experience
Men
defining Theme 1: Theme 2:
LUTS preoperative life the procedure Complications

Life with a Urinary

control
catheter The patient
Theme 3:
experience of recovery
Level of pain
TURP or ThuVARP
Physical
Easing into complications
Theme 4: daily life
Satisfied?
impact of surgery

Urinary
Psychosocial changes
impact
Sexual effect

FIGURE 11 Conceptual framework of qualitative findings from participants in the UNBLOCS trial.

© Queen’s Printer and Controller of HMSO 2020. This work was produced by Worthington et al. under the terms of a commissioning contract issued by the Secretary of State for
Health and Social Care. This issue may be freely reproduced for the purposes of private research and study and extracts (or indeed, the full report) may be included in professional
journals provided that suitable acknowledgement is made and the reproduction is not associated with any form of advertising. Applications for commercial reproduction should
55
be addressed to: NIHR Journals Library, National Institute for Health Research, Evaluation, Trials and Studies Coordinating Centre, Alpha House, University of Southampton Science
Park, Southampton SO16 7NS, UK.
 QUALITATIVE STUDY

Preoperative life

Defining lower urinary tract symptoms

The participants interviewed had presented with a range of LUTS that were typically summarised as
‘old men’s’ problems’ (Figure 12).

The onset of these symptoms was described as slow and gradual by the men interviewed who had
constructed LUTS as intrinsic to the ageing process. In some ways, this had allowed participants to
normalise their symptoms rather than perceive them as a major concern requiring medical attention and
this had continued for some years. For some men, the eventual recognition that the issues were indicative
of a larger urinary problem was accompanied by a sudden escalation of symptom severity. Participants
reported an overwhelming feeling that suggested a lack of control as the challenges imposed by these
symptoms became increasingly problematic. This was perceived as detrimental to the quality of life of
individuals as the disruptive nature of LUTS began to manifest:

It had happened gradually I suppose, over, I don’t know, 10 years or so I hadn’t really noticed . . . so I
hadn’t put it down to anything other than just old age until this, until I peed a bit of blood.
62 years, urinary retention presentation, ThuVARP

Eventual urinary retention

Typically, the somewhat mild urinary symptoms had started to surface some years before patients
participated in this study and, for some, other health problems would lead to the eventual deterioration of
urinary function. Interestingly, most participants with retention described a significant lack of urinary issues

I was incontinent
I had no control
at all

It wasn’t
every time
but it was
regular and
it also didn’t
necessarily
If I needed happen a
to go to when I
the toilet passed water
A feeling of Constantly it was it could also
wanting to pee sometimes Stopping
going to the happen just
It was the and then not an urgency and
toilet, oh spontaneously
reduced flow really getting and I’d got starting
20 times a I had problems where I
as much as rid of it all to get on whilst
day starting would get a
anything when I did pee with it urinating
[to pass urine] leakage

Reduced Incomplete Intermittent

Frequency Urgency Hesitancy Incontinence
flow emptying flow

They all just say it’s the same old thing ‘man’s problem isn’t it?’ ‘old man’s problem’

FIGURE 12 Participants’ descriptions of commonly occurring LUTS.

56
NIHR Journals Library www.journalslibrary.nihr.ac.uk
 DOI: 10.3310/hta24410 HEALTH TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT 2020 VOL. 24 NO. 41

before their urinary retention emerged, and this was repeatedly described as a ‘switch’ by one participant.
This signified the rapid, unexpected nature of urinary retention:

I didn’t have any [urinary symptoms] at all other than I got up, um, one morning and just couldn’t go.
69 years, urinary retention presentation, ThuVARP

Other participants believed urinary retention to be the outcome of years spent overlooking their LUTS,
although they had acknowledged this only after the onset of retention. Participants appeared unable to
recall a specific pattern to this symptom, as it was largely unpredictable:

We were on a coach tour and I felt I needed to go the toilet so I went in the one on the coach and
I had the feeling I wanted to go but I couldn’t pass and I felt like that all the way down to Yorkshire
through the day, the following day it was no better and my stomach was all swollen.
74 years, urinary retention, TURP

Suddenly I’m not able to go to the toilet and even when I go there’s just the measliest dribble it’s like
losing the pressure off and I mean the whole thing was definitely very different and why this suddenly
happened I’m not sure.
74 years, urinary retention presentation, ThuVARP

Participants reporting urinary retention appeared eager to pass urine as they stressed that the feeling of
needing to do so would become increasingly urgent. They continued to emphasise the need for ‘relief’,
which was finally achieved through catheterisation. Furthermore, participants reflected on their emotional
relief once they had become aware of the underlying problem. Generally, urinary retention was described
as an unsettling experience, and this was largely because of the uncertainty that participants had felt when
attempting to determine the cause of their pain. It was an experience largely shaped by a feeling of not
knowing, which resulted in some anxiety and worry:

I was obviously concerned, you know, I thought it may have been something more sinister.
74 years, urinary retention, TURP

A disrupted life
The effect of urinary symptoms varied daily, and this depended on the specific symptoms with which
participants presented. Travelling was particularly difficult for those participants with LUTS, as the frequent
need to pass urine meant that they required regular breaks. This resulted in some participants reducing
their use of public transport, and those participants who chose to drive long distances recalled that the
time taken to do so was much greater because of the frequency of toilet breaks. This was embarrassing
for these participants and it could also be embarrassing for their partners:

Travelling was very difficult obviously because you’re often travelling for more than an hour.
61 years, LUTS, ThuVARP

Any sort of long drive is a bit of a problem.

63 years, LUTS/urinary retention presentation, ThuVARP

This inconvenience was also reflected in participants’ discussions of their experiences of being in public.
All men with LUTS described a routine of pre-planning before any social outings to ensure that a toilet
would be nearby. Despite this, some men continued to encounter problems, describing their fear of having
urge incontinence when toilet facilities were in use. This was a source of embarrassment and it also
reduced confidence, and participants detailed the way in which these issues had made them self-conscious;
for example, any form of incontinence could result in visible marks on their trousers. Furthermore, those

© Queen’s Printer and Controller of HMSO 2020. This work was produced by Worthington et al. under the terms of a commissioning contract issued by the Secretary of State for
Health and Social Care. This issue may be freely reproduced for the purposes of private research and study and extracts (or indeed, the full report) may be included in professional
journals provided that suitable acknowledgement is made and the reproduction is not associated with any form of advertising. Applications for commercial reproduction should
57
be addressed to: NIHR Journals Library, National Institute for Health Research, Evaluation, Trials and Studies Coordinating Centre, Alpha House, University of Southampton Science
Park, Southampton SO16 7NS, UK.
 QUALITATIVE STUDY

participants who used incontinence pads or catheters described the embarrassment of having to use specific
cubicles that would allow them to use these without others seeing; this was frustrating and time-consuming:

You were always searching for toilets, you know having to plan things, just generally a bit of a drag,
I mean it’s not great quality of life, really, when you’re doing that.
69 years, LUTS/urinary retention presentation, ThuVARP

The other side of it or downside of it was me wanting to go and someone using the toilet, well a
couple of times I nearly had an accident with it.
66 years, LUTS presentation, ThuVARP

Therefore, it appeared that such urinary symptoms required a constant state of vigilance, which meant that
participants were unable to enjoy many things. This resulted in a reduced quality of life, and participants
continued to discuss the unpleasant nature of these symptoms and the way that these affected both their
lives and their psychological well-being:

You really couldn’t do nothing properly because I had to keep running backwards and forwards to the
toilet when I was doing my jobs.
75 years, LUTS presentation, ThuVARP

It was, you know, embarrassing for my wife and embarrassing to me to explain to people. I explained
it because rather than think ‘what’s wrong with this guy?’ You know, so you just handled it the best
way you could.
66 years, LUTS presentation, ThuVARP

It became in the end that I’d probably became a bit of a recluse. I didn’t want to go out.
66 years, LUTS presentation, ThuVARP

It’s very embarrassing because you obviously had to change your trousers and you couldn’t come out
and people said, well, why have you just changed your trousers? You had to tell them but luckily I’m
quite thick-skinned that way.
69 years, urinary retention presentation, ThuVARP

Within the home, the time taken to complete everyday activities was also negatively affected by the
frequency with which they needed to pass urine and also by incontinence, resulting in the need to wash
and change far more often:

I was out in the garden for instance, I think I’d only last about half an hour and then I had to run in,
washing my hands [because they] were all dirty and change your shoes and by the time I got in there
I wetted myself.
75 years, LUTS presentation, ThuVARP

The daily tiredness caused by nocturia also resulted in irritable moods and negatively affected relationships;
for example, one participant discussed his decision to sleep in a separate bedroom to his partner to avoid
disturbing her:

I could be up four or five times, tired. I get cross with my wife poor love, she’d say I was
bad tempered.
76 years, LUTS presentation, TURP

58
NIHR Journals Library www.journalslibrary.nihr.ac.uk
 DOI: 10.3310/hta24410 HEALTH TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT 2020 VOL. 24 NO. 41

Management of symptoms
Some of the men interviewed had discussed their initial reluctance to report their urinary symptoms and
to visit the doctor. This appeared to be a prominent issue among these men, which some speculated was
shaped by perceptions of manhood. Instead, they had adopted strategies to assist them as they attempted
to cope with their symptoms:

I would wear the shirt outside the trousers just in case anything did happen so it would maybe help
cover it up. I had to be careful where I went to and if I went to [place name] I would make sure I
knew where the toilets were, that sort of thing.
68 years, LUTS presentation, ThuVARP

I carry a little plastic pot that’s just in case. In fact that’s had to be used. It was a sort of portable loo.
76 years, LUTS presentation, TURP

If you were on a long journey you had to make sure you had the stops or take something with you to
relieve yourself, I used to take a bottle with us.
68 years, LUTS presentation, TURP

As the symptoms became more severe, participants became more amenable to the idea of seeking medical
guidance. Before being involved in this trial, a number of participants had sought to alleviate some
symptoms by using non-surgical interventions. Some had been offered a surgical procedure at an earlier
stage but had instead made the decision to explore options that were considered less invasive. Medication
was believed to have helped for a short period, but these improvements were not permanent. This was
considered disappointing, as were the side effects that the participants had experienced as a result of
this medication:

Finasteride particularly has a dulling effect [on] one’s sexual appetite.

65 years, LUTS presentation, ThuVARP

I was given a choice of a drug medication or the operation so we decided to go with the drug
medication first of all so I went on that for about a year but it didn’t really make any difference.
71 years, LUTS presentation, TURP

Other participants found that incontinence pads were necessary to help them manage and cope with
unexpected urinary leakage. Such accounts were met with some humour as the men recognised that these
products were important. Although pads were accepted as useful, they were also noted to be a financial
burden, which meant that participants were eager to find ways to spread this cost. An example of this was
one participant cutting his pads in half and another using his wife’s sanitary products instead. Participants
also highlighted that pads could be demeaning in some ways, as they were constantly conscious of any
possible smells and whether or not the pads were visible. Finally, it appeared that, for these participants,
surgery was considered a last option for dealing with these problematic symptoms.

Life with a catheter

A number of participants were also required to use a catheter, and perspectives differed on this form of
symptom management. Generally, the catheter was considered a substantially inconvenient part of daily
life as it often prevented participants from fully engaging in many aspects of life. Physically, participants
felt unable to exercise, to have sex, to travel, to sleep comfortably and to socialise for extended periods of
time. The catheter was uncomfortable, and in some cases it resulted in pain:

Horrendous absolutely horrendous, it was really, really traumatic, well it was just constant, you know,
you were aware it was there all the time. I was unable to drive properly, it just interfered. I was having
to empty this thing every couple of hours this bag you know. Ah, I hated it, absolutely hated it.
74 years, LUTS presentation, TURP

© Queen’s Printer and Controller of HMSO 2020. This work was produced by Worthington et al. under the terms of a commissioning contract issued by the Secretary of State for
Health and Social Care. This issue may be freely reproduced for the purposes of private research and study and extracts (or indeed, the full report) may be included in professional
journals provided that suitable acknowledgement is made and the reproduction is not associated with any form of advertising. Applications for commercial reproduction should
59
be addressed to: NIHR Journals Library, National Institute for Health Research, Evaluation, Trials and Studies Coordinating Centre, Alpha House, University of Southampton Science
Park, Southampton SO16 7NS, UK.
 QUALITATIVE STUDY

Such restrictions could be considered a psychological phenomenon in some ways, as some participants
explicitly stated that actually participating in certain activities was less challenging than they had believed it
would be. Nonetheless, the catheter significantly influenced the reduction in these participants’ psychological
quality of life. Depression, embarrassment, fear and low self-esteem meant participants were further restricted
in what they were able to do on a daily basis. This had major implications for the identity of these men, as it
became evident that the catheter had become a threat to their sense of masculinity. As such, the narrative
around catheter use was intrinsically linked to the notion that the catheter was far more problematic for
participants as men:

I had to sort of carry these catheters around. I was due to go away four times that year and three
holidays I couldn’t go on because I didn’t feel confident about, you know, anything.
69 years, LUTS/urinary retention presentation, ThuVARP

It just wasn’t me.

71 years, urinary retention presentation, TURP

These negative experiences were pivotal in participants’ decisions to undergo surgery, as the participants
stressed that the possibility of a future without a catheter had motivated them. The extent to which these
men were dissatisfied with catheters, and the resulting effect on their life, was highlighted as they depicted
a sense of enthusiasm for an invasive procedure rather than proceed with their life as it was:

If I didn’t, I’d have to have a catheter for in for the rest of my life, it was enough for me . . .
That was enough for me to make the decision.
74 years, LUTS presentation, TURP

The thought of the rest of my life with catheters was a bit off-putting to be honest.
82 years, urinary retention presentation, TURP

Importantly, not all participants viewed their catheter as a problem. For some, it had come to symbolise
relief, as it eased the pain and obstruction caused by retention. Furthermore, it allowed some participants to
freely socialise and to move beyond the constraints of their home, as they were provided with a feeling of
secureness, although this depended on the type of catheter used. Some found that the catheter prevented
them from the embarrassment of having to frequently go to pass urine when they were socialising. It also
enabled them to pass urine with ease, without interrupting any activities. However, the participants noted
that in these situations they became conscious of the need to empty their catheter, which was a task that
made them self-conscious, as did the visibility of the catheter:

I had a catheter fitted, that was a bit of a lifesaver for me because I actually got my life back together.
Although it was an embarrassment it gave me freedom of movement of where I wanted to go and do
what I wanted to do . . . My life became more tolerable, I could do what I wanted to do, if I wanted
to go out I could go out and I did go out. I felt safer with the catheter and going out and doing what
I wanted to do.
74 years, urinary retention presentation, ThuVARP

Discussion
This qualitative exploration of men’s lived experiences of LUTS and urinary retention revealed a number of
significant themes. First and foremost, participants attempted to define their urinary symptoms. Moreover,
it was revealed that participants had normalised their symptoms, believing them to be simply a feature of
ageing. This has been noted elsewhere in the literature by Irwin et al.,49 who found that most participants
believed their symptoms to be a normal part of ageing. This showed that men may require information
about prostatic obstructions and treatment options. It also highlighted that men need to be encouraged to
visit health professionals about LUTS.

60
NIHR Journals Library www.journalslibrary.nihr.ac.uk
 DOI: 10.3310/hta24410 HEALTH TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT 2020 VOL. 24 NO. 41

Urinary symptoms appeared to play a vital role in reducing well-being as participants experienced countless
disruptions to all aspects of their life, including social, leisure, physical and, in some instances, work. An
awareness of the impact on partners and family was also highlighted. Gradual isolation was also identified
as a consequence of ongoing symptoms.

These findings also increase our understanding of how men view their catheters, which formed the focal
point of many discussions. The dissatisfaction reported by some participants about living with a catheter
contrasted with previous findings by Cobussen-Boekhorst et al.,50 who reported that individuals could be
satisfied with some elements of the experience; this was also borne out by the views of some participants.
A number of participants interviewed identified the catheter as a symbolic barrier that restricted their
functioning. However, this may have been because this was a cohort of men who had sought surgery for
their symptoms and were unprepared to continue using a catheter. This view may not necessarily be shared
by men who are satisfied with using a catheter to manage their symptoms.

The procedure

Undergoing surgery
Prior to discussing the experience of undergoing an invasive surgical procedure, participants discussed their
reasons for requiring the operation and, in doing so, also described their personal expectations and aims.
This highlighted the subjective nature of surgical success, with most hoping that their symptoms would
reduce to a more controllable level. In these discussions, participants also relayed their expectations about
their surgical experience and their preconceived perceptions of recovery. This was especially relevant when
they were discussing the length of their hospital stay and any delays experienced when they were admitted.
Some participants were sympathetic about this, referencing the strains on the NHS as a contributing factor,
and appeared to construct this as a normal feature of being hospitalised for surgery. Some participants
described delays between agreeing to participate in the trial and having their specific procedure. This was
received negatively by a cohort of participants who were eager to improve their quality of life, and were
deemed particularly problematic as they prolonged disruptive LUTS and retention and sometimes allowed
the symptoms to increase in severity. Those participants using a catheter had also expressed their concerns
that an extended wait could ultimately have a harmful effect on their recovery. Specifically, they speculated
that relying on a catheter could result in an underactive bladder, which would require further attention and
‘training’ in the future:

I waited 10 months from when I first saw my doctor to when I finally had the operation or when I first
contacted my doctor, it took 10 months and by then it was beginning to become obviously much
more of a nuisance.
65 years, LUTS presentation, ThuVARP

I shouldn’t have had the catheter in this long and I had trouble because they knew I had trouble with
my prostate. I should have been took straight in for an operation straight away, no ifs, no buts.
71 years, urinary retention presentation, TURP

Those participants interviewed thought that the surgical experience had begun just as they were
anaesthetised. Discussions regarding this perioperative period were brief, and participants disclosed their
psychological approach to being in a medical environment. Understandably, some presented a distinct
aversion to hospitals, a feeling that was often strengthened when the individual lacked experience of
being in that setting. This contrasted with the experiences of participants who had been hospitalised
before and had undergone successful procedures, who were able to use their positive experiences to
develop a pragmatic viewpoint of hospitals in general that provided them with assurance and comfort in a
situation embroiled with uncertainties:

I was sort of anxious and nervous about going in to hospital because I’d been in to see various family
members who’d been in to hospital, never liked it at all and never wanted to go in to hospital.
63 years, LUTS presentation, ThuVARP

© Queen’s Printer and Controller of HMSO 2020. This work was produced by Worthington et al. under the terms of a commissioning contract issued by the Secretary of State for
Health and Social Care. This issue may be freely reproduced for the purposes of private research and study and extracts (or indeed, the full report) may be included in professional
journals provided that suitable acknowledgement is made and the reproduction is not associated with any form of advertising. Applications for commercial reproduction should
61
be addressed to: NIHR Journals Library, National Institute for Health Research, Evaluation, Trials and Studies Coordinating Centre, Alpha House, University of Southampton Science
Park, Southampton SO16 7NS, UK.
 QUALITATIVE STUDY

It don’t worry me hospitals, I’ve been in before . . . I mean hospitals, they really don’t worry me but
it’s just that people seem to be frightened of hospitals but I don’t seem to be frightened of them for
some reason. I just let them do what they want to do and that’s it.
63 years, urinary retention presentation, ThuVARP

Some discussions about preoperative fears also became evident at this stage as feelings of anxiety were
heightened by an awareness of potential side effects. Perceptions and worries about surgical success were
thus interlinked with the prevalence of any side effects. Although some men were confident, they had been
expected to provide consent immediately before the procedure, which had resulted in them becoming
somewhat nervous about the possibility of something going wrong:

I can’t really say for sure what I was concerned about. I mean it was explained that the percentage
of successful surgery, you know, was quite high, that there was a possibility of complications and a
damage to the urethra and scarring and various other problems but I thought, well, on balance you
know the, um, the odds were quite good for a successful outcome which is why I decided to go
ahead with it.
82 years, urinary retention presentation, TURP

I didn’t know whether it would succeed or not . . . I read all these leaflets and they said, you know,
you’ve got a 10% chance of this and a 5% chance of that and a 2% of this that and the other and
I thought, um, you know, hopefully, you know, I won’t fall in any of those categories.
63 years, LUTS presentation, ThuVARP

Those participants who were anxious before surgery preferred to undergo a general anaesthetic rather than
remain conscious during the surgery. Some had expressed a preference for an epidural as this allowed them
to feel far less drowsy than they would have done after a general anaesthetic; these participants believed
that this reduced the recovery period in hospital as they were more likely to feel better much sooner. The
epidural had also meant that the men were unable to recall any feelings of pain during that particular stage,
apart from some general discomfort:

My legs started to go to stone you know just limp like, I couldn’t move them around which was fine
and that was it I was awake throughout the operation. The only thing I felt the only pain I felt during
the operation was from the blood pressure monitor on my left arm.
65 years, urinary retention presentation, TURP

Anaesthesia also influenced what participants were able to remember about the procedure and so very
few were able to estimate how long surgery had lasted. However, one participant did note that his surgical
time had been much quicker than he had estimated, which resulted in him stating with certainty that he
had undergone ThuVARP. In fact, this perspective was shared by all participants who felt that the surgical
period had been particularly efficient regardless of the actual procedure that they had undergone. This did
also raise an important point, namely that those men who were satisfied with the duration of surgery were
adamant that they had undergone a ThuVARP procedure:

My operation time was very quick so when I came round, I knew which one I’d had. I’d had the laser
one so I was very pleased with it because it was wonderful as far as I was concerned.
66 years, LUTS presentation, ThuVARP

Participants discussed various elements of their inpatient care that helped make the experience much more
bearable. This included the level of care that they received from members of staff, which all participants
were eager to emphasise had been excellent:

The hospital [staff] were so nice and helpful and attentive, you know, a very good hospital experience.
72 years, LUTS presentation, TURP

62
NIHR Journals Library www.journalslibrary.nihr.ac.uk
 DOI: 10.3310/hta24410 HEALTH TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT 2020 VOL. 24 NO. 41

The majority of participants interviewed who had undergone ThuVARP recalled an average of two nights’
stay, whereas those participants undergoing a TURP reported being in hospital for an average of three
nights. Longer stays could often be for a number of reasons, including perioperative complications that
were reported by both TURP and ThuVARP participants. Nonetheless, participants appeared to be satisfied
with the length of their hospital stay when this had been much shorter than they had expected:

This one day thing it’s just amazed me because I took stuff in for 5 days or something like they put
with the booklet.
63 years, urinary retention presentation, ThuVARP

Physical experience
Immediately following surgery, most participants were distinctly unaware of any physical effects from
treatment as that particular period was characterised by a range of overwhelming sensations that were
indicative of recovery. Participants were attached to a catheter that was visibly filled with blood, and they
were in some discomfort; however, they emphasised that this had been expected and was considered a
normal part of having an invasive procedure. Some participants also reported some drowsiness, which they
attributed to general anaesthesia. Those participants who had received an epidural reported numbness in
their legs, which lasted a few hours:

I probably spent longer recovering from the epidural than I did from the operation.
66 years, LUTS presentation, ThuVARP

I felt pretty good actually at that point and then I went to the ward and none of it was too painful
really or uncomfortable amazingly.
65 years, LUTS presentation, ThuVARP

Nonetheless, most participants agreed that this stage was largely pain-free, and this appeared to be the
case regardless of procedure. However, a few participants who had been randomised to undergo ThuVARP
described some soreness and discomfort, with one man requiring morphine. This was later believed to be
the result of an external complication. Similarly, one participant who underwent a TURP reported a similar
experience, which was believed to be the result of an infection. In fact, any differences between experiences
that had emerged at this stage were often perceived to be the result of other complications, such as
unrelated illnesses and infections. In general, however, men undergoing either procedure reported very little
pain and some bleeding.

It’s more pain than I could sort out with paracetamol, that’s the only way I can describe [it]. You
know, it was quite bad pain but the morphine sorted it out and after I don’t know how many hours,
probably about 12 hours or so, I came off the morphine and was on just normal painkillers.
64 years, LUTS presentation, ThuVARP

I was suffering pain and discomfort even when I was discharged it was a bit uncomfortable if you
understand, you know what I mean? Obviously in the lower area there, it wasn’t massive but I knew
there was some pain there.
72 years, LUTS presentation, TURP

Bleeding was reported by all participants at this stage and this was visibly noticeable in their catheter.
Although this had been expected, as all participants had been counselled regarding this, some did describe
their surprise at the amount of blood that they had passed. The presence of blood clots was also recalled:

They did tell me after that there would be blood clots but the thing that was worrying me was the
amount of old blood that I was amassing in my catheter bag.
65 years, urinary retention presentation, TURP

© Queen’s Printer and Controller of HMSO 2020. This work was produced by Worthington et al. under the terms of a commissioning contract issued by the Secretary of State for
Health and Social Care. This issue may be freely reproduced for the purposes of private research and study and extracts (or indeed, the full report) may be included in professional
journals provided that suitable acknowledgement is made and the reproduction is not associated with any form of advertising. Applications for commercial reproduction should
63
be addressed to: NIHR Journals Library, National Institute for Health Research, Evaluation, Trials and Studies Coordinating Centre, Alpha House, University of Southampton Science
Park, Southampton SO16 7NS, UK.
 QUALITATIVE STUDY

I was generating a very rich red Bordeaux wine type blood. I was on the wash with the catheter and
washed to clear out particles and just the bag would fill up with really fairly deep red. I’d been a blood
donor in my young army days. I’m not fazed by the sight of blood, even my own, but I felt, oh dear,
I didn’t expect this and it went on Tuesday, Wednesday.
83 years, LUTS presentation, ThuVARP

These participants continued to describe some blood as the catheter was finally removed before they
were discharged. It was also noted that the actual removal of the catheter was somewhat painful and
uncomfortable. Some even specified that this was the most painful part of their entire hospital experience
as they referred to the discomfort that it had caused. For some men, it was also followed by the reinsertion
of the catheter, which was fairly difficult and problematic. This was usually because the participants were
unable to pass a substantial amount of urine, which in itself resulted in a longer hospital stay. Despite the
discomfort, the majority of participants specified that the procedure had been painless, which was a strong
determinant of surgical satisfaction. This was particularly the case for the participants who had expected
some pain, as it meant that their procedure exceeded their expectations in some ways:

When they took that out there was a lot of blood came away with it as well but it was the only
discomfort really was removing it.
64 years, LUTS/retention presentation, ThuVARP

They got the catheter reinserted. Some of the instruments they used the first time I’d been hanging on
to a bed for dear life but the staff nurse and the doctor were very good, but nobody could explain why
it wouldn’t go in . . . I thought oh God it’s going to damage me or something but no, everything’s fine.
66 years, LUTS presentation, ThuVARP

When I came out from the anaesthetic I had no pain, nothing really, I was surprised actually because
I thought oh I’m going to have all sorts of symptoms and pains and this, that and the other but
I hadn’t.
79 years, urinary retention presentation, TURP

Complications
Perioperative complications reported by some participants influenced their perspective on the procedure.
Such issues were recalled by six participants who had undergone ThuVARP and seven who had undergone
TURP. Most commonly, these meant that the participants experienced a longer than expected hospital
stay, which was somewhat disappointing for them. However, these participants also stressed that they
believed that their issue was unique and not a result of their treatment, which they felt had been
relatively successful:

I’m quite satisfied with the surgery, I don’t know how much of the other effects are due to that or
other things but no the surgery did what it was intended to do.
63 years, LUTS/retention presentation, ThuVARP

A wide range of specific complications were reported and it became evident that it was in fact difficult for
participants to determine whether they thought that these had been caused by the procedure or were the
result of underlying health issues. Nonetheless, most participants gave the impression that these issues had
emerged as a result of external issues that were unrelated to the procedure. One particular incident included
the diagnosis of myasthenia gravis and two participants recalled issues relating to their blood pressure.

Other men reported how their hospital stay had been extended and this was sometimes a result of infections,
which appeared to be equally prevalent among those participants undergoing TURP and those participants
undergoing ThuVARP. Overall, infections were described by three participants who had undergone ThuVARP
and three participants who had undergone TURP. These infections could be problematic, as one participant
described how he had been given the wrong antibiotics, which increased his recovery time to much longer

64
NIHR Journals Library www.journalslibrary.nihr.ac.uk
 DOI: 10.3310/hta24410 HEALTH TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT 2020 VOL. 24 NO. 41

than anticipated. Other participants also agreed that such surgical complications resulted in a longer recovery
period. One participant described how he had been re-hospitalised immediately after discharge as a result
of norovirus:

Twelve hours after I’d come home, I woke up being violently sick and had diarrhoea. I think – well
fairly sure it was the norovirus that I’d picked up while I’d been in hospital so for the next 3 or 4 hours
I got weaker and weaker.
65 years, LUTS presentation, ThuVARP

Discussion
Participants’ discussions about surgery were briefer than those about other elements of their journey. It became
clear that some participants considered the period of being hospitalised anxiety-inducing, which had been
shaped by a feeling of ‘not knowing’. Although participants did not claim that they had been uninformed,
there was a sentiment of surprise regarding events that had not been expected, for example the amount
of postoperative bleeding experienced. Thus, the question arises of how to fully inform an informed patient
group to appropriately manage expectations. However, participants largely considered any complications to
be unrelated to the type of surgery specifically and simply viewed them as unfortunate incidents.

The period waiting for surgery was cause for concern as there was a perception that symptoms might
worsen. The ability to achieve a full recovery was considered to be potentially hampered. Individuals
understood this is a frustration with the NHS but had concern for their own potential health decline
resulting from the ‘system’.

Recovery

Urinary control
Participants reported a number of effects during the weeks following surgery, describing the ways that their
bodies attempted to recover. It was during this stage that participants reported fluctuations in their urinary
symptoms, which meant that they found this particular period somewhat unsatisfactory. In total, seven
participants who had undergone TURP reported LUTS during recovery, and this was also reported by nine
participants who had undergone ThuVARP. The specific type of LUTS differed, as did the severity. Some
urgency was described by these participants; however, most commonly, participants reported different
types of incontinence, which was the case irrespective of the specific procedure they had undergone. Two
participants who reported urge incontinence during this period after ThuVARP also noted that this was an
ongoing issue. One participant who had undergone TURP also described some urge incontinence, which
was mostly prevalent during the night; however, this had subsided after a few weeks. Interestingly, all three
of these participants had initially presented with urinary retention and had used a catheter preoperatively.
As a result, they felt that their bladder was simply becoming accustomed to being used:

It was more a case of there was a little night incontinence with a little bit of dribbling and that, you
know, where it was shutting down properly which they said was going to happen so readjusting
to that.
64 years, urinary retention presentation, TURP

Some participants also reported total incontinence, which was an issue for three participants who had
undergone a TURP and five who had undergone ThuVARP. Two of these participants who had received a
TURP and three who had received ThuVARP had initially presented with LUTS. The two participants who
had undergone TURP had also experienced complications during their procedure:

When I came home the first afternoon, I put on my white jogging trousers and I thought I’ll just go to
my bed . . . I woke up and I had just a puddle of urine just by my left hip, my right hip it was totally
drenched and the blanket was just totally drenched. I’m straight away depressed to say the least.
65 years, urinary retention presentation, TURP

© Queen’s Printer and Controller of HMSO 2020. This work was produced by Worthington et al. under the terms of a commissioning contract issued by the Secretary of State for
Health and Social Care. This issue may be freely reproduced for the purposes of private research and study and extracts (or indeed, the full report) may be included in professional
journals provided that suitable acknowledgement is made and the reproduction is not associated with any form of advertising. Applications for commercial reproduction should
65
be addressed to: NIHR Journals Library, National Institute for Health Research, Evaluation, Trials and Studies Coordinating Centre, Alpha House, University of Southampton Science
Park, Southampton SO16 7NS, UK.
 QUALITATIVE STUDY

It made me feel dirty. You know, that’s all I can say, you know, that’s when I started wearing these
pads again.
73 years, urinary retention presentation, ThuVARP

These participants utilised and incorporated into their daily lives a range of aids to ease the negative effects
of this procedure. These included pads, incontinence pants, medication and, in one case, the use of a penile
clamp. However, some participants specified that they had continued to use pads for security rather than
necessity. Participants noted that they continued to practise pelvic floor exercises, which for one man were
uncomfortable and difficult. Some participants also noted that this iatrogenic effect had led to depression
and had a detrimental effect on their self-esteem as well as their mood while interacting with others:

I was still leaking heavily into pads, I think because at that stage I’d been leaking for a year or so I was
just used to leaking.
72 years, LUTS presentation, TURP

I cut them in half so that I don’t waste sort of half the pad because as I say it’s like double
incontinence pads so I cut them in two so that’s two pads instead of the one and I’m using maybe a
pad every couple of days.
65 years, urinary retention presentation, TURP

In addition to this, two participants who had undergone ThuVARP had been catheterised throughout the
recovery period, and both had experienced a problem relating to their temperature during the procedure.
One of these participants stressed that his retention had been the result of a stretched bladder rather than
solely due to a prostatic obstruction. As a result of this, he appeared to present a complacent attitude and to
have accepted this particular outcome as his reality as it continued to be ongoing. The second participant,
however, highlighted that he had contracted norovirus, which had resulted in catheterisation for two and a
half weeks following his procedure. Following this, he expressed satisfaction at his ability to pass urine, which
was slowly improving; however, he also noted that his urine had been somewhat cloudy during this stage:

My prostate was not particularly large. What I had was an extremely large bladder or stretched bladder
where the muscles were horribly damaged due to the size of it and that’s the main problem with not
being able to pee afterwards and this remains to be the same thing at the moment, but it is improving
as the weeks and months go by.
69 years, urinary retention presentation, ThuVARP

Other participants saw immediate improvements; one man described how he had realised this while still in
hospital when he attempted to drink a caffeinated drink. Before undergoing ThuVARP, he had restricted
the type of liquids he would drink and had made the decision to drink only non-alcoholic, decaffeinated
drinks. This participant no longer experienced negative effects of having drinks he enjoyed and he
described his happiness at being able to drink beer for the first time in 12 years. Other participants who
experienced similar immediate improvements described the surgery as ‘life-changing’, and this was again
equally the case whether participants had undergone TURP or ThuVARP. It was noted that the ability to
pass urine was often immediate and that the flow became stronger as the weeks passed. Furthermore,
participants noted that they had been passing urine fairly frequently but during this period this subsided.
Participants were elated with these changes and discussed their satisfaction at being able to pass urine in a
way that reminded them of being younger:

When I come out of hospital I was going to [the] toilet as you know not as normal, more often but
I was, I was quite happy with the whole thing.
71 years, urinary retention presentation, TURP

They flushed it through I went to the toilet and the nurse on duty she says ‘I’m going to take your
catheter out and then we’ll see what progress is’, and from then it’s been champion.
71 years, urinary retention presentation, TURP

66
NIHR Journals Library www.journalslibrary.nihr.ac.uk
 DOI: 10.3310/hta24410 HEALTH TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT 2020 VOL. 24 NO. 41

Level of pain
Although most participants had declared that the procedure itself had been painless, they described their
period of recovery as somewhat painful. As a result, pain became an important feature of the recovery
experience, and a range of descriptions were provided. In general, 12 out of 18 TURP participants felt
some level of physical discomfort, whether this was while passing urine or general soreness throughout the
day; 12 out of 19 ThuVARP participants reported similar experiences of pain. Most common was a burning
sensation when passing urine, a severely unpleasant feeling that continued for some time:

Bit like peeing acid or peeing ground glass if you could imagine either sensation, that’s kind of where
it sits between something very chemically hot like acid or something that’s friction. It would be like
ground glass or even sand or something, you know, it’s not a natural feeling.
61 years, LUTS presentation, ThuVARP

This intense pain caused some participants to think negatively about their surgical procedure, a view that,
for some, was shaped by their lack of awareness of this particular effect. This was specifically highlighted
by participants as they stressed the importance of being warned about the pain associated with recovery.
A number of participants described this pain as unbearable, although in some instances it was short-lived.
Participants also explained that the information they had received about pain had been from other men
who had undergone TURP in the past; this highlighted the necessity of sharing valuable information from
lived experiences as it enabled participants to realise that their recovery was normal:

It only lasted 3 days but that pain was excruciating. It wasn’t worth taking any tablets for because the
only pain I had was when I went to the toilet and afterwards for about a couple of minutes. The
burning sensation and the pain was horrendous. You say the men don’t take pain very well but that
was horrendous and I wasn’t told that. OK it would have been nice to have been told that that was
pretty painful.
69 years, LUTS presentation, TURP

Some participants felt that the pain was due to the insertion of catheters and surgical equipment in their
urethra, with some speculating that this may have resulted in scarring. The men stated that their urethra
felt tender during the recovery period and for some this feeling had continued until the point of interview.
In attempting to identify and make sense of this pain, participants largely attributed it to the invasiveness
of the procedure:

The catheter that they use for the operation is bigger than the normal one because it carries a camera
as well as the equipment, you know, so that’s probably what’s causing the burning. It’s as if there’s
urine in my urethra up to the head of the penis and it creates a stinging, quite a strong stinging,
so I need to go to relieve the stinging more than the urine.
68 years, LUTS presentation, ThuVARP

Physical complications
The participants interviewed reported that bleeding, and, in some instances, clots, when passing urine
continued to be common following discharge. Although participants had been aware that this particular
effect may occur, it nonetheless elicited some fear and worry. In particular, the visibility of blood and flesh
had been disconcerting:

They told me that there’d be some sort of residual bleeding for a while and then it seemed to stop
and then one evening, I felt the need to pee and they did warn me that a clot might come out but
I wasn’t expecting it to be quite – it was sort of oh that size [comparison with a coin] and it was a bit
like a bit of cloth obviously soaked in blood and that frightened me a bit.
63 years, LUTS presentation, ThuVARP

© Queen’s Printer and Controller of HMSO 2020. This work was produced by Worthington et al. under the terms of a commissioning contract issued by the Secretary of State for
Health and Social Care. This issue may be freely reproduced for the purposes of private research and study and extracts (or indeed, the full report) may be included in professional
journals provided that suitable acknowledgement is made and the reproduction is not associated with any form of advertising. Applications for commercial reproduction should
67
be addressed to: NIHR Journals Library, National Institute for Health Research, Evaluation, Trials and Studies Coordinating Centre, Alpha House, University of Southampton Science
Park, Southampton SO16 7NS, UK.
 QUALITATIVE STUDY

This was considered normal by some participants who had passed blood for up to 2 weeks after their
procedure. In fact, for a number of participants who had undergone ThuVARP, the bleeding had subsided
within a few days. Perspectives on this did vary and it was deemed concerning largely among those participants
who felt that they had not been told about it beforehand. This difference in perspective can be observed when
analysing the views of two participants who had a similar experience of postoperative bleeding, only one of
whom had been aware that this could happen. This suggested that participants who were more informed
about their recovery were more likely to be satisfied as they were aware that the bleeding would subside:

There was a little blood and clots the like, I was passing in the first couple of weeks after the
operation. I didn’t think anything of it because I’d been warned that could be the case and I had seen
that in my own reading and then when it was explained to me.
71 years, LUTS presentation, TURP

I was bleeding for a couple of days after that and when I got back in touch and I said I’m bleeding,
you know, and they said don’t worry that’s quite normal. She said that will clear up on its own within
a couple of days which it did and then after that everything’s been fine you know the colour of the
urine and everything has been normal.
79 years, urinary retention presentation, TURP

Postoperative bleeding continued to dominate discussions as a number of participants noted that it had
continued for an extended period, which, ultimately, had resulted in a prolonged recovery. This was especially
problematic for those participants who had reported larger blood clots that were painful to pass. Although
some reported ‘slithers’ of flesh when passing urine, others reported severe urinary retention due to blockages
that resulted in further hospitalisations. This erratic physical effect had meant that participants were anxious
and feared that it would happen again. As these repeated incidents of painful urinary retention had led to
hospitalisations, the participants noted that their fears had prevented them from planning many trips, which
highlighted the disruptive effect that this had on their lives. However, a combination of medication and time
appeared to alleviate this problem:

I says to my wife ‘I got a lot of bleeding’, so I left it that night. The next morning I got up and I felt
terrible you know because I’d worn out my stomach and it was retention so I goes to the hospital in
[location] right and he says well we can’t do a lot and I felt terrible mind and I thought I could feel
the blood clots . . . I couldn’t plan anything really I couldn’t plan after the holiday because you’re
frightened you’re going to have another bleed.
70 years, LUTS/retention presentation, TURP

I didn’t expect it to be so bad for me but I don’t know if everybody else had the same problems, I don’t
know. I had massive bleeds about 3 weeks afterwards, then I had another bleed again 2 weeks after
that and I had another bleed again 2 weeks after that, so it’s been quite an experience. I had to go into
hospital to be flushed out each time, it was blood that was clotting. I had blood clots all the time.
68 years, LUTS presentation, TURP

Easing into daily life

These fears had not only disrupted the plans of these participants but also affected their ability to maintain
many daily activities. In general, participants were instructed to rest for some time, which they considered
frustrating. Nonetheless, they stressed the need to rest, recalling trial instructions that recommended a
2-week rest period. However, some participants noted that they had found the instructions somewhat
vague as they were unable to understand what the appropriate rest period would be. Some participants
were able to return to daily activities almost immediately without any major problems; in these situations,

68
NIHR Journals Library www.journalslibrary.nihr.ac.uk
 DOI: 10.3310/hta24410 HEALTH TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT 2020 VOL. 24 NO. 41

they ensured that they rested during the instructed period, although they felt that they had essentially
recovered before that:

You had to take things easy and not do any strenuous exercise, but if no one had told me that if
someone had said, ‘Oh you can just go back to normal as soon as you know as soon as you feel fit’,
it would have been about 5 days.
69 years, LUTS/retention presentation, ThuVARP

For participants who had undergone ThuVARP, the time taken to return to normal daily activities, including
work, was estimated to be between 4 and 5 weeks, similar to that reported by those patients who had
undergone TURP. Therefore, it appeared that for most participants, this time depended on their subjective
preparedness to continue with specific activities rather on than which surgical procedure they had
received. During this period, participants avoided a number of physical and leisure activities, including
sport, long walks, driving and sexual intercourse. Some noted that they were able to participate in light
physical activities within 2–3 weeks, usually walking the dog or shopping. More strenuous activities, such
as physical exercise and sport, took much longer, and some men noted during their interviews that they
had only begun to play golf again between 3 and 6 months following the procedure:

I still wanted to do my own shopping but I could hardly like walk. I’m still stubborn like that.
63 years, urinary retention presentation, ThuVARP

I do weight training and sort of gym work and I would say after 4 or 5 weeks, say 5 weeks, I was back
to normal.
69 years, LUTS/retention presentation, ThuVARP

Return to daily life was delayed for participants who experienced incontinence during recovery and they
described how this led to depression. Interviews revealed that this was one of the most important phases in
reshaping and shifting perspectives on satisfaction. It was during this period that participants reported the
profound effect that their fluctuating physical symptoms had on their daily life as they struggled to adapt to
the restrictions that their surgery had imposed. Some who were catheterised described discomfort, and it
became apparent that, overall, this period was distinctly characterised by psychological difficulties, as
feelings of fear, anxiety and depression dominated their accounts:

I thought once I was discharged I was going to be fine you know but I was quite rough. It must have
been a couple of months, you know, I couldn’t get myself together like. Not very nice it made me
quite depressed actually and I don’t usually get like that.
73 years, urinary retention presentation, ThuVARP

Detrimental to an extent because you know I didn’t do any gardening and I didn’t do much walking
about for up to 6 weeks after the operation so I tended to put on weight.
63 years, LUTS presentation, ThuVARP

I mean I probably didn’t go out so much when I was at the beginning of the recovery. I gradually did,
we’ll go anywhere now it’s not a problem.
64 years, LUTS presentation, ThuVARP

Discussion
This theme illustrated the importance of recovery in shaping participants’ perspectives of their surgical
procedure overall. During this stage, some participants continued to experience many fluctuating symptoms
that placed them in ‘limbo’ and had some implications for their sense of self. These participants reported a
range of negative urinary symptoms, including a frequent need to pass urine, urgency and incontinence.
Further to this, bleeding and retention due to clots and pain when attempting to pass urine were commonly
noted by participants regardless of procedure. In some instances, these issues led to limited function, which,

© Queen’s Printer and Controller of HMSO 2020. This work was produced by Worthington et al. under the terms of a commissioning contract issued by the Secretary of State for
Health and Social Care. This issue may be freely reproduced for the purposes of private research and study and extracts (or indeed, the full report) may be included in professional
journals provided that suitable acknowledgement is made and the reproduction is not associated with any form of advertising. Applications for commercial reproduction should
69
be addressed to: NIHR Journals Library, National Institute for Health Research, Evaluation, Trials and Studies Coordinating Centre, Alpha House, University of Southampton Science
Park, Southampton SO16 7NS, UK.
 QUALITATIVE STUDY

in turn, caused participants to question and re-evaluate their social roles as they became somewhat reliant
on the help of others, which some seemed to resent.

A range of factors became apparent during these discussions that revealed key facets of patient
dissatisfaction that were specific to both procedures. This was particularly prevalent when participants
described their period of recovery as many shifting determinants of dissatisfaction were embedded within
participants’ journeys. For example, the subjective recollections of blood loss, pain and postoperative LUTS
and urinary retention were perceived as problematic and upsetting, especially when they were viewed as
prolonging their recovery. Some participants had pursued further information about the clinical aspects of
their recovery, which had reassured them that their recovery was ‘normal’. However, others felt that this
information was provided only postoperatively, which led to some dissatisfaction with the overall health
service. Although knowledge of potentially negative effects enabled participants to psychologically cope
rather than endure a feeling of uncertainty, participants emphasised that this had not made the lived
experience any easier. These factors were generally viewed negatively and resulted in feelings of regret
for a period following surgery as they encountered a range of difficulties and reported limitations to the
activities that they were able to engage in.

Despite the perceived negative elements of their recovery, most participants were satisfied with the
efficiency with which they were able to return to their normal daily activities. Factors that resulted in
patient satisfaction included the efficiency of the procedure, a lack of pain, swift improvements to quality
of life, alleviation of symptoms and diminished catheter dependency. Some participants had in fact felt
that their symptoms had improved immediately as they detailed their satisfaction at being able to pass
urine with a strong flow. Moreover, they had recognised that their ability to pass urine would generally
improve and highlighted that this had indeed appeared to be the case. Recovery was essentially shorter
for these participants than for others, as they described the way in which they had felt able to participate in
many activities much sooner than they had expected. Others considered that previous catheter use would
result in a prolonged recovery; this did appear to be the case for most as they described their need to
’re-train’ their bladders. This was problematic for those participants for whom urinary symptoms were just
one of a list of other, overlapping, health issues; some discussed other life concerns that had interfered
with their recovery, including the death of a partner and other operations. Ultimately, these external
elements had also affected their perceptions of recovery.

Outcome of surgery

Urinary changes
During the interviews, participants were able to identify the impact that their procedure had had on their
lives by discussing its eventual effect on their pre-trial symptoms. Most participants emphasised an absence
of urinary symptoms at the point of interview; however, those participants who had some symptomatic
issues stressed their belief that this would improve. In general, those participants who had presented with
LUTS reported eventually regaining control over their bladder and urinary functions, with many specifying
that they had experienced improvements to their flow rate, a reduction in nocturia and frequency and a
distinct lack of incontinence. Such improvements were evident across all interviews, as men undergoing
either procedure expressed their satisfaction and amazement at the changes:

The beauty of it is that I’m able to empty my bladder in one go whereas before I couldn’t sometimes.
I’d have to have a wee and then 10 minutes I’d have to have another one because I couldn’t empty it
but now I can.
76 years, LUTS presentation, TURP

For those men who had undergone TURP while presenting with LUTS, it was reported that their urinary
symptoms gradually subsided after a period of 2–3 weeks. During this period, participants reported some
urgency and, as previously noted, some suffered from incontinence. However, during their interviews
participants highlighted how this had drastically improved, and this was largely attributed to general

70
NIHR Journals Library www.journalslibrary.nihr.ac.uk
 DOI: 10.3310/hta24410 HEALTH TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT 2020 VOL. 24 NO. 41

recovery and a combination of pelvic floor exercises, rest and medication. At the point of interview, it was
agreed that participants were essentially free of bothersome daytime LUTS, although it was noted that they
continued to pass urine during the night. However, the frequency with which this occurred had reduced:

He stressed to me, pelvic floor muscle exercises and put me on Vesicare which has worked wonders.
My bladder control has gone back to like it was when I was a young man.
72 years, LUTS presentation, TURP

Similarly, some participants who had presented with LUTS and had been randomised to ThuVARP discussed
their immediate ability to pass urine without difficulty and noted that their urinary frequency had reduced
within 1 month. This immediate improvement was also highlighted by one participant who had been
catheterised for his incontinence prior to surgery and discussed his satisfaction at regaining control over his
bladder and ability to pass urine. For these men, this ability was largely improving:

When the consultant came round or whoever it was that came round looked at the bag and then said
right we can take the catheter out . . . I was blown away when I heard that. It’s fantastic now. When
we go out I don’t have the inconvenience. I can last for longer now than I’ve lasted for years I think.
66 years, LUTS presentation, ThuVARP

I came home, I was catheterising away every 4 hours maybe and that was working fine there was no
problems with that whatsoever and then I suddenly found that I was starting to pee a little bit on my
own and that was a maybe an eggcup full or half a cup full.
69 years, urinary retention presentation, ThuVARP

Those participants who had experienced urinary retention and were subsequently catheterised prior
to surgery presented a range of postoperative experiences. Most men who had been randomised to
ThuVARP reported immediate improvements; however, one participant did describe a continuation of
the urinary frequency and nocturia that he had experienced before surgery. Another two participants
discussed their incontinence during their interviews, with one expressing a stronger dissatisfaction with
that particular outcome:

I’m still wearing these pants. I was three a day but I now have an appliance which is basically a clamp
which I put on my penis to stop it dripping so one pair of pants is security gets me through the day
but I’m still leaking. I’m still doing my five-a-day pelvic floor. It is better but it’s a very slow process.
83 years, LUTS presentation, ThuVARP

Positive outcomes were also highlighted by men who had undergone TURP for their urinary retention as
some were delighted with the symptomatic outcome. These men had found that any initial LUTS had
reduced and they were eager to recommend the procedure. However, other men noted that they
experienced some hesitancy, frequency and urgency. This was thought to be a result of their ongoing
attempts to regain control over a bladder that had become reliant on a catheter:

I’m pretty pleased with what I’ve had done so I would recommend it to any one of my friends.
75 years, urinary retention presentation, TURP

Almost normal, apart from the occasional times when there’s a little bit of a problem starting or it’s
hesitant but that’s not a great problem.
82 years, urinary retention presentation, TURP

Interestingly, some participants noted that their recovery period had been fraught with a number of
urinary symptoms that had resulted in dissatisfaction. However, the eventual improvements and reduction
in urinary-related issues caused participants to change their initial perspective on their procedure.

© Queen’s Printer and Controller of HMSO 2020. This work was produced by Worthington et al. under the terms of a commissioning contract issued by the Secretary of State for
Health and Social Care. This issue may be freely reproduced for the purposes of private research and study and extracts (or indeed, the full report) may be included in professional
journals provided that suitable acknowledgement is made and the reproduction is not associated with any form of advertising. Applications for commercial reproduction should
71
be addressed to: NIHR Journals Library, National Institute for Health Research, Evaluation, Trials and Studies Coordinating Centre, Alpha House, University of Southampton Science
Park, Southampton SO16 7NS, UK.
 QUALITATIVE STUDY

In doing so, participants highlighted the fragmented elements of patient satisfaction, as they had been
dissatisfied with components of their experience and yet extremely satisfied with their outcome. As such, it
became apparent that the surgical procedure was perceived as separate from the overall experience, and
discussions on satisfaction reflected this:

Satisfied with the operation, just not satisfied with the after-effects.
68 years, LUTS presentation, TURP

I’m happy with the outcome now, yeah. It seemed to take a long time to get right.
64 years, LUTS presentation, ThuVARP

Sexual effect
Some participants reported sexual changes that they thought had resulted from the procedure. This
outcome was reported broadly across both arms as participants disclosed their sexual dysfunction and sexual
discomfort. Perspectives on these changes varied as participants recognised that they had been aware of
potential sexual problems prior to participation and felt that this was simply the cost of having an otherwise
beneficial procedure. Nonetheless, it was deemed a concerning after-effect, as participants appeared to
describe some regret. Furthermore, age appeared to play a key role in shaping perceptions of this negative
effect; older participants noted that sexual intercourse was no longer an important feature of their lives:

I wish it wasn’t like that [limitation to sexual matters] but if it’s the price to pay for the other issues I’d
pay that price.
69 years, LUTS/retention presentation, ThuVARP

We’re both in our middle 70s and it doesn’t worry me that much I’ve had my share so [laughs] I had
four children so sometimes it’s frustrating but it don’t worry me that much.
73 years, urinary retention presentation, ThuVARP

Ejaculatory issues were described by many participants, as they began to experience retrograde ejaculation
following surgery. However, some participants said that this had been an issue prior to participation and
perceived it to be a result of medication they had taken previously for LUTS. Participants also provided
descriptive accounts of visible changes in their semen and speculated that they were no longer
producing sperm:

What comes out isn’t fully loaded with sperm so you can’t in theory have children but as I said at 61
already having done that I don’t feel the sudden need to do it now. There’s no effect at all in terms of
the social side of what you’re referring to.
61 years, LUTS presentation, ThuVARP

I do actually ejaculate but [unsure] whether it’s semen that I’m ejaculating because it’s quite a
clear fluid.
74 years, urinary retention presentation, TURP

I was taking Tamsulosin before. I think I had a partial sort of retrograde ejaculation but now it’s total
so that means, you know, it’s not as good as it was.
69 years, LUTS/retention presentation, ThuVARP

Two participants had also reported erectile dysfunction, which was particularly concerning, and expressed
a desire to seek treatment. Participants had in fact felt that sexual issues had been sidelined as they
noted that these concerns had not been discussed before the interview and appeared to welcome the
opportunity to do so. For some participants, severe discomfort and pain during their recovery had affected

72
NIHR Journals Library www.journalslibrary.nihr.ac.uk
 DOI: 10.3310/hta24410 HEALTH TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT 2020 VOL. 24 NO. 41

their participation in sexual activities. Furthermore, passing blood and clots had resulted in fear and anxiety
surrounding sex, which was evident in some accounts:

That’s almost non-existent because that’s another problem I’ve got and that’s keeping an erection
so that hasn’t improved. I don’t know if it’s got worse but that hasn’t really changed no and I don’t
know what I can do about that, I’ve been living with that.
64 years, LUTS presentation, ThuVARP

You’re frightened, after that first bleed you think well I can’t because or else I’ll bleed . . . I still get the
urge but there’s just that feeling in the back of your mind saying that you might have a bleed.
70 years, LUTS/retention presentation, TURP

Psychosocial impact
Among the participants interviewed, it became apparent that their pre-trial symptoms had had a
detrimental effect on the quality of their life. As a result, a key aim of all participants had been to improve
their daily lives as it had become evident that they had hoped for a positive psychosocial effect from their
particular procedure. The majority of participants felt that this had been achieved, discussing the impact of
regaining control over their urinary function; for them, surgery had been ‘life-changing’. They described
how relieved they were that their symptoms no longer had control over their lives:

I was coping with it before, it’s just I don’t have to think about it now. I suppose that’s the difference
it’s made.
64 years, LUTS presentation, ThuVARP

Mentally it was a weight lifted off my mind. I was going back to normality, what other people did.
66 years, LUTS presentation, ThuVARP

It feels a lot better, I haven’t had any problems. I can go to the toilet and I feel fine and to me from
using the self-catheter four or five times a day to going on my own is wonderful so all in all that’s
been a success it has to me. I can start planning, start my life again.
70 years, LUTS/retention presentation, TURP

Participants discussed their delight at being able to participate in activities that had been impossible prior
to surgery as they recalled being able to partake in long journeys, family holidays and sport with ease and
without the inconvenience of stopping to pass urine. This had allowed them to regain the confidence that
had been severely hindered by their urinary symptoms. They specified that the anxiety that had previously
engulfed their thoughts before socialising was no longer a concern and, importantly, they were now happy:

I don’t have to worry about going to the toilet every 10 minutes, you know. I can go out and I can
enjoy myself without worrying about where the next toilet is and stuff like that.
64 years, LUTS/retention presentation, ThuVARP

It was like I had another 10 years put on my life.

63 years, urinary retention presentation, ThuVARP

My happiness is like I am a new person . . . I can smile again.

75 years, urinary retention presentation, TURP

I have a life back. I’ve probably gone back almost 20 years ago. I’m a different person altogether.
66 years, LUTS presentation, ThuVARP

This reflected a process of psychological rejuvenation as participants repeatedly asserted that the surgery
and its subsequent positive outcome had allowed them to regain elements of their youth. Some participants

© Queen’s Printer and Controller of HMSO 2020. This work was produced by Worthington et al. under the terms of a commissioning contract issued by the Secretary of State for
Health and Social Care. This issue may be freely reproduced for the purposes of private research and study and extracts (or indeed, the full report) may be included in professional
journals provided that suitable acknowledgement is made and the reproduction is not associated with any form of advertising. Applications for commercial reproduction should
73
be addressed to: NIHR Journals Library, National Institute for Health Research, Evaluation, Trials and Studies Coordinating Centre, Alpha House, University of Southampton Science
Park, Southampton SO16 7NS, UK.
 QUALITATIVE STUDY

specified that they felt much younger and others noted that it had changed their entire outlook on life.
As such, the difference that the surgery had made to their lives was visible and the participants noted that it
had been a ‘miracle’. In fact, this level of satisfaction was also shared by the participants who had described
their recovery period as problematic, as they noted that the eventual outcome meant that the challenges
had been worth it:

In the first questionnaire I filled out and sent off I put that that I wasn’t very satisfied you know but at
that moment that’s how I was feeling. But now when I look back I think why was I getting like that?
73 years, urinary retention presentation, ThuVARP

Almost all participants suggested that they would recommend the procedure and those participants who
experienced a less than pleasing outcome felt that this was a result of external issues rather than the
surgery. For these participants the effect had been unique and they speculated that this would not be the
case for others. It was also highlighted that the surgery had in fact dealt with the initial symptoms, although
it was believed to have resulted in new symptoms. For some men, this had resulted in depressive feelings
as their lives were now restricted and dominated by urinary symptoms. However, these particular
participants also described their hope and optimism that this would improve with time and as such
appeared to construct their present symptoms as part of a prolonged recovery process.

Discussion
This theme aimed to provide a greater insight into the overall outcome from TURP and ThuVARP on
participants who had presented with LUTS and urinary retention. Although all participants agreed that the
surgery had successfully treated their prostatic obstruction, some also revealed a number of new urinary
symptoms and some sexual dysfunction. The impact on urinary symptoms varied greatly and appeared to
be dependent on participants’ initial symptoms. Some of those participants who had been catheterised
before their surgery revealed that their recovery was ongoing as they continued to regain control over their
bladder while suffering from incontinence.

The interview findings revealed that surgery had a specific effect on sexual functioning. However, it was
also found that most participants had experienced some form of sexual issue before participating in this
trial. This was often perceived to have been due to previous drug interventions that were thought to
have failed to treat their urinary symptoms. This particular effect could have implications for participants’
perceptions of masculine identity as they often drew on notions of manhood while discussing the barriers
that they encountered. When discussing the improvements to their psychological well-being following their
satisfactory procedure, participants stressed that it had enabled them to feel confident and young again.

It also appeared that successful procedures that had reduced symptoms had also altered participants’
perceptions of their own bodies. Their initial LUTS and urinary retention had pushed bladder and urinary
functioning to the fore of their consciousness and the final symptomatic outcomes meant that this
heightened awareness had subsided along with their symptoms. This had reduced the anxious feelings
that had been so prevalent. This can perhaps be interpreted using phenomenological theories relating to
the concept of embodiment. In particular, the concept of the ‘lived body’, as proposed by Gadow,51 could
be applicable, as it suggests that a conscious lack of awareness of one’s body or body parts results in
improvements in psychological well-being.

Discussion

Strengths and limitations of the qualitative study

The fact that the participants interviewed were already involved in a surgical trial meant that we were
sampling from a select group who may have had particular views, given their willingness to take part in
a RCT. In addition, we interviewed only those men who had consented to participate, which may have
meant that we interviewed participants with a particularly positive perspective. However, we did collect

74
NIHR Journals Library www.journalslibrary.nihr.ac.uk
 DOI: 10.3310/hta24410 HEALTH TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT 2020 VOL. 24 NO. 41

both positive and negative accounts, and the reasons for non-participation do not suggest a particular
skew towards the interviewed population.

Interviews were conducted at only one time point and largely when symptoms were expected to have
resolved, which may have resulted in recall bias. If we had interviewed participants during the immediate
postoperative period, which appears to capture the most negative experiences overall, we might have
gathered more accurate accounts of that time without the resulting improvements that have led to more
positive reflections. Descriptions were fairly balanced and certainly included negative aspects, which
suggests that the disadvantages of the pragmatic approach taken to reduce participant burden by
interviewing once only is mitigated by the evidence in the data obtained.

The majority of interviews were conducted over the telephone rather than in person, but there is no
evidence to suggest that this influenced participants’ candour. It is recognised that robustly conducted
telephone interviews can be as effective as face-to-face interviews, and using the telephone enabled
participants at all of the study sites to be included and allowed regional perspectives to be reflected.52

Although approximately half of participants had experienced LUTS that may have been evident for a
number of years, a strength of the study from a qualitative perspective is that patients were included who
presented with urinary retention, which in some cases had a very sudden onset. The participants with
urinary retention included those men who had been dismissing their symptoms for some time but now
found themselves in a health-seeking situation because of their circumstances, as well as those men who
had not had reason to seek help previously. The opportunity to interview these participants would not
often arise and this has helped to investigate opinions related to health-seeking, for example that LUTS are
‘just part of the ageing process’.

Summary of the findings and implications

A general finding of importance is that male LUTS continue to be viewed as a ‘normal part of ageing’,
which can prevent individuals from seeking treatment that could significantly benefit their lives. Health
promotion activities and engagement with this population is required to alter this perspective and facilitate
active treatment-seeking behaviours.

Interviews confirmed that both procedures resulted in a fairly equal patient experience, with participants
reporting similar journeys of recovery and outcomes. Descriptions of a period of uncertainty that preceded
satisfactory outcomes were also common. The few differences that did emerge were largely perceived as
individual, unique experiences rather than representative of the surgical procedure, and this was particularly
the case for participants who reported complications during the perioperative stage. These complications
were thought to have had a negative impact on recovery, as some reported a prolonged period of recovery
that resulted in some feelings of depression. During this stage, some participants had experienced urinary
symptoms, bleeding and pain, although these were thought to have subsided by the time of the interview.
In general, most participants were able to continue with their daily lives within 1 month, although some had
begun to slowly reintroduce light exercise and work into their lives much earlier.

A number of participants also reported urinary retention due to clots and this was similarly noted by those
undergoing either procedure. For other participants, this period was characterised by a range of LUTS
that essentially delayed their return to normality. Those men who had initially presented with urinary
retention appeared more likely to have experienced some incontinence during this period and discussed
their need for medication and pelvic-floor exercises, which helped them to regain bladder control. These
symptoms were thought to be due to previous catheter use as participants speculated that their bladder
had poorer function. This was supported by the fact that some participants who had been catheterised
previously for incontinence also experienced LUTS. Most found that these problems did resolve, and others
hoped there would be a gradual improvement. Concerns about the length of time waiting for surgery
were also linked to perceptions of the potential for full symptom resolution.

© Queen’s Printer and Controller of HMSO 2020. This work was produced by Worthington et al. under the terms of a commissioning contract issued by the Secretary of State for
Health and Social Care. This issue may be freely reproduced for the purposes of private research and study and extracts (or indeed, the full report) may be included in professional
journals provided that suitable acknowledgement is made and the reproduction is not associated with any form of advertising. Applications for commercial reproduction should
75
be addressed to: NIHR Journals Library, National Institute for Health Research, Evaluation, Trials and Studies Coordinating Centre, Alpha House, University of Southampton Science
Park, Southampton SO16 7NS, UK.
 QUALITATIVE STUDY

In general, almost all participants were satisfied with the final outcome as both procedures had essentially
met their aims. The participants had hoped and expected to have their initial symptoms treated and, as this
had happened, most discussed their delight at the improvements in their quality of life. Those participants
who were less satisfied with their eventual outcome noted that they were satisfied with the procedure itself,
but that outcome and, indeed, recovery had been trying. Furthermore, they described a lack of knowledge
about specific side effects and suggested that the level of information they had received played a large role
in shaping their feelings of satisfaction. However, it must be stressed that all participants had received the
same information about the trial and any potential outcomes, yet some had described themselves as less
informed. Although clinical interactions contributed to this, the personal characteristics of patients must
also play a large role. Some appeared more receptive to the information and to actively pursue additional
information than others. It is therefore important that clinicians and health-care staff ensure that all
participants receive accurate and good-quality information that can ultimately enhance their experience.

As the majority of participants did specify that their expectations regarding the outcome of surgery had
been met, most appeared generally satisfied with the outcome and the extent to which their initial
symptoms had alleviated. The subjective determinants of dissatisfaction reported during recovery were
particularly informative as they revealed factors that affect perceptions of outcome. Differences between
the procedures in terms of blood loss, pain, large blood clots, and LUTS and retention are aspects that may
influence individuals when they are considering potential treatment options, and will provide a further
perspective on the quantitative findings. These symptoms were reported to contribute to a prolonged
recovery, which was also considered to have had a negative influence on outcome.

Participants also stressed their need for further information, and the findings of this study will be key to
strengthening the advice and guidance provided to future patients. These findings also support Burgio
et al.,53 who highlighted the importance of preoperative counselling as a determinant of satisfaction for
those men undergoing stress incontinence surgery. It was noted that this would enable patients to set
realistic expectations about surgical outcomes, which could ultimately minimise their postoperative impact.

The need to be aware of participants’ concerns about sexual matters when undergoing these procedures
was highlighted. Participants raised concerns about their ability to conduct a satisfactory sex life, which
were perceived to be related to, and to predate, surgery. The opportunity to discuss this during the patient
journey is important and would provide an opportunity to signpost patients to treatment if desired. During
interviews, participants commented that this was the first time they had been asked and that they were
glad to have the opportunity to discuss these personal issues, something that has implications for practice
going forward.

These findings extend on other studies that have explored determinants of patient satisfaction and apply
them specifically to surgical interventions for BPO. Previously it has been reported following joint replacement
surgery that overall satisfaction has been determined by meeting expectations, achieving pain relief, and
a satisfactory hospital experience.54 This was indeed also found to be key among this cohort as participants
described resolution of symptoms and the procedure experience as pivotal to their satisfaction.

This study has provided unique insight into the lived experiences of men undergoing TURP or ThuVARP
for the treatment of LUTS or urinary retention. This will provide a deeper understanding of the patient
perspective when interpreting the quantitative trial data and when counselling patients in clinical practice.
The ability to counsel future patients using insight from previous patients will help men to understand the
patient journey and help inform decision-making. Most participants were ultimately satisfied with their
surgical outcome following the recovery period and would appreciate robust information about the
procedures and their recovery, along with active enquiry regarding any concerns with their sexual matters.

76
NIHR Journals Library www.journalslibrary.nihr.ac.uk
 DOI: 10.3310/hta24410 HEALTH TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT 2020 VOL. 24 NO. 41

Chapter 6 Discussion and conclusions

P arts of this chapter are reproduced from Hashim et al.2 This is an Open Access article distributed in
accordance with the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY 4.0) license, which permits
others to distribute, remix, adapt and build upon this work, for commercial use, provided the original work
is properly cited. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The text below includes minor additions
and formatting changes to the original text.

Summary and interpretation of main findings

The UNBLOCS trial compared two technologies for treating BPO in the UK NHS: ThuVARP and the
gold-standard TURP.

Patients were randomised between the two arms at the point of surgery. The two arms were generally
well balanced at baseline for sociodemographic and clinical characteristics, with the groups also equally
divided between those presenting with urinary retention and those with bothersome LUTS secondary to
BPO. Participants had a mean age of 70 years. The proportion of participants receiving their randomised
treatment was much higher in the TURP arm (98%) than in the ThuVARP arm (75%), with eight
participants requiring a conversion to TURP mid-procedure.

Primary outcomes
The primary aim of the trial was to determine whether ThuVARP and TURP are equivalent in terms of the
co-primary outcomes of patient-reported IPSS and Qmax at 12 months after surgery.

The two procedures appear to be equivalent for symptom relief measured by the IPSS, and therefore this
blinded trial has shown that patients’ perceptions’ of urinary tract symptoms are equivalent when the
actual treatment is unknown. Both procedures achieved a much improved IPSS from that reported at
baseline, dropping from a mean score of around 21 for participants with LUTS (baseline data could not
be collected for retention participants) to a mean score of around 6 at 12 months post surgery for all
participants. This is as expected from BPO surgery, demonstrating that both procedures improve subjective
symptom scores.

Maximum urine flow rate improved after both procedures, from a mean of < 10 ml per second at baseline
for participants with LUTS (baseline data could not be collected for retention participants) to a mean of
> 20 ml per second at 12-month follow-up for all participants. ThuVARP gives a lower maximum urinary
flow rate at 12 months than TURP, deeming the treatments non-equivalent in Qmax. Changing the test to
superiority provided evidence to suggest that TURP is superior to ThuVARP with respect to Qmax.

The result for Qmax is based on the assumption that a difference of > 4 ml per second has clinical
significance. As discussed in Chapter 2, Equivalence margin, no minimal clinically important difference
in Qmax is accepted in the literature. A figure of 2 ml per second has been quoted previously; however,
following discussion between clinicians, in this trial the higher value of 4 ml per second was chosen.
Therefore, the finding of non-equivalence and superiority is in the context of uncertainty about what is
considered as a clinically significant difference for Qmax, and superiority was demonstrated for TURP
against a relatively high value of clinical significance. However, the improvement in Qmax from baseline
seen in both arms would be considered a clinically successful outcome from BPO surgery.

Secondary outcomes
The ThuVARP procedure did not lead to fewer complications, as had been expected, with results suggesting
that the procedures were similar in this respect. Both procedures were equally safe perioperatively, with a
risk of no more than 4% for any individual complication, and no incidence of TUR syndrome (dilutional

© Queen’s Printer and Controller of HMSO 2020. This work was produced by Worthington et al. under the terms of a commissioning contract issued by the Secretary of State for
Health and Social Care. This issue may be freely reproduced for the purposes of private research and study and extracts (or indeed, the full report) may be included in professional
journals provided that suitable acknowledgement is made and the reproduction is not associated with any form of advertising. Applications for commercial reproduction should
77
be addressed to: NIHR Journals Library, National Institute for Health Research, Evaluation, Trials and Studies Coordinating Centre, Alpha House, University of Southampton Science
Park, Southampton SO16 7NS, UK.
 DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS

hyponatraemia due to fluid absorption). In the 12 months post surgery, a similar incidence of clot retention
(≈5%) and urethral stricture (≈3%) was observed, as well as of infections including urinary tract infection
(≈35%), sepsis (≈1%) and pyrexia of unknown origin (≈3%). Overall, ≈20% of participants in both arms
suffered a serious adverse event.

Of particular note when considering complications is the level of clinically significant bleeding, which was
experienced equally between the two arms; around 5% of participants experienced bleeding to the point
that their haemoglobin had to be measured, and around 2% of participants required a blood transfusion.
One of the advantages quoted in the literature of laser procedures over standard treatment is a reduction in
the risk of bleeding and transfusion rates; however, no such difference was observed in this trial. A further
advantage of laser procedures that has previously been reported is a reduction in the length of hospital stay.
However, in this trial the length of stay was 48 hours in both arms, which is the national average, and
certainly shorter than that in the Chinese trials of the thulium laser published in the literature.13,14

Other surgical outcomes, such as the length of indwelling catheterisation time and change in levels of
haemoglobin and serum sodium pre- and postoperatively, were also very similar between the arms. Serum
sodium did not reduce significantly after surgery, suggesting that serum sodium checks may not be required
postoperatively, as have previously been conducted. Both groups had a median indwelling catheterisation
time postoperatively of approximately 2 days.

In terms of urinary measures on the whole, taking into account IPSS, International Consultation on
Incontinence Questionnaire, Qmax and post-void residual, all results were in favour of the TURP procedure
on visual appraisal, albeit by a small amount and without any statistical significance. Patient-reported
outcome measures in this trial looked at urinary symptoms, quality of life, sexual symptoms and satisfaction
with surgery, and no significant difference was found between the arms in these. However, we cannot rule
out a clinically important difference in patient-reported nocturia, with indication of an increased incidence
at 12 months post surgery in the ThuVARP arm. This result is difficult to rationalise, although it may be
a heat-induced effect; however, the other storage symptoms do not reflect this. It is also possible that
charring from the laser could cause irritation and urinary frequency/nocturia. It should be noted that
satisfaction with surgery and quality of life after surgery were rated highly in both arms, with no significant
difference between the arms.

Subgroup analyses suggest a greater improvement in Qmax after receiving TURP than after receiving
ThuVARP among patients diagnosed with LUTS, with no difference between the arms indicated in
participants diagnosed with urinary retention. In addition, there is a suggestion that men aged < 70 years
may benefit more from TURP than from ThuVARP in terms of Qmax. Further exploration of these potential
effects would be of interest for future research.

Of note is the finding that only 75% of participants randomised to ThuVARP received their complete
randomised treatment, as opposed to 98% of participants who underwent TURP procedures. A large
proportion of changes in treatment were because of equipment failure in the ThuVARP arm, with 18
participants being changed to TURP straight away or converting mid-procedure. The size of the prostate
also resulted in nine conversions to TURP. The proportion of participants receiving conversions, compared
with those receiving ThuVARP, was relatively balanced across the centres, with between 6% and 25% of
participants in each centre receiving a conversion from ThuVARP to TURP. The high rate of conversions
may have been due to several factors. As surgeons had generally completed a mean of only seven cases
before proceeding to trial cases, there may have been an element of ‘teething problems’ with the laser,
and a continued learning curve past the assessment of competence. However, this is unlikely to be the
cause, as, when breaking the recruitment period per surgeon into halves, the conversion rate in the first
half was 11%, whereas it increased to 28% in the second half. Potentially, as surgeons became more
experienced with the laser, their judgement of when procedures needed to be converted may have
altered. Equally, some surgeons expressed a reluctance to operate on large prostates with the laser early
in the trial, with some exclusions of patients with larger prostates from the trial. The increased number of

78
NIHR Journals Library www.journalslibrary.nihr.ac.uk
 DOI: 10.3310/hta24410 HEALTH TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT 2020 VOL. 24 NO. 41

conversions could therefore also have reflected the increasing confidence of surgeons to operate on larger
prostates with the laser. Future research into the comparative effectiveness of ThuVARP and TURP in large
prostates would also be of interest.

An interesting finding, although one not prespecified, was that the treatments differed in pathology
diagnostic detection. Following the procedure, 193 participants in each arm had a prostate histology,
among whom 13% in the TURP arm were diagnosed with prostate cancer, compared with only 5% in
the ThuVARP arm. When looking at the histology samples, pathologists were usually alerted to laser TURP
cases by the fact there was charring of the tissue. On reviewing the weight of resected tissue, the amount of
tissue available for histology was noted to be also significantly reduced in those who had laser procedures.
This is due to the vaporesection conducted by the thulium laser, which vaporises a proportion of the tissue
as well as resecting. The difference in histological finding may therefore be due to both a reduction in tissue
and the tissue being damaged by charring from the laser. The significance of this finding is that prostate
cancer diagnoses may be missed as a result of the limited histology available, although TURP is not part
of the diagnostic pathway for prostate cancer. The results of this study may therefore have implications that
the National Cancer review55 may wish to consider. Further work into this area could include categorising
the prostate cancer findings by stage and grade from pathological reports to further establish the clinical
relevance of the findings.

The trial was conducted across four teaching hospitals and three district general hospitals in the UK, and
included a variety of hospitals to increase the generalisability of the results. The majority of recruitment
occurred in the teaching university affiliated hospitals, which suggests that research is easier to conduct
in these hospitals because there are more resources available. However, this does not mean that smaller
hospitals cannot participate in research, as demonstrated by successful recruitment across all sites.

Economic evaluation

The results of the economic evaluation indicate that, from an NHS secondary care perspective and an
NHS perspective, participants in the ThuVARP arm had slightly higher costs and fewer QALYs than those
in the TURP arm, but these differences were consistent with chance. The probability that ThuVARP is
the cost-effective option compared with TURP at a threshold of £20,000 per QALY is only 24%, which
increases slightly to 25% when all NHS costs are taken into account.

The expected lower costs in the ThuVARP arm resulting from the fact that this can be carried out as a day
case procedure did not materialise. This is to some extent an artefact of the trial, in that participants had to
be listed as a day-case or an inpatient stay prior to admission. According to Hospital Episode Statistics data
from 2013/14,56 the mean length of stay for TURP procedures was 2.9 days, as opposed to 1.8 days for
laser procedures already in use in the NHS. However, Hospital Episode Statistics data for 2016/1757 report
a reduction in the mean length of stay for TURP to 2 days, equal to that for laser procedures. Indeed,
a shift was made in two of our study sites to conduct TURP procedures as day case during the trial. No
difference in actual length of stay was observed between the TURP and ThuVARP arms during the trial.
The effect on costs of being able to carry out ThuVARP as a day-case procedure in the other five centres
was examined; this showed that ThuVARP was cheaper than TURP in this scenario (£3909 vs. £4245),
which led to a positive INMB of £99 (95% CI –£547 to £745). This implies that if TURP did not become
a day-case procedure, and if ThuVARP was always a day-case procedure, then the two operations would
not differ in cost-effectiveness.

It is also worth noting that all hospitals will have a TURP machine. Therefore, although an annual equivalent
cost (including machine maintenance) was calculated for both procedures, there would be an upfront
cost to purchase the laser machine that would not in reality be mirrored by a need to purchase a TURP
generator, until the generator required replacing. The cost of purchasing a generator is approximately 10%
of the purchase cost of a laser machine and therefore trusts may not be inclined to fund this upfront higher

© Queen’s Printer and Controller of HMSO 2020. This work was produced by Worthington et al. under the terms of a commissioning contract issued by the Secretary of State for
Health and Social Care. This issue may be freely reproduced for the purposes of private research and study and extracts (or indeed, the full report) may be included in professional
journals provided that suitable acknowledgement is made and the reproduction is not associated with any form of advertising. Applications for commercial reproduction should
79
be addressed to: NIHR Journals Library, National Institute for Health Research, Evaluation, Trials and Studies Coordinating Centre, Alpha House, University of Southampton Science
Park, Southampton SO16 7NS, UK.
 DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS

laser cost. The majority of the equipment cost for the TURP procedure is in the consumables used, contrary
to the laser cost, the majority of which results from the reusable equipment, including the laser machine.
There is a high rate of conversions from ThuVARP to TURP, which during this trial meant that both sets of
equipment were required for 24% of procedures. The effect of this in relation to the overall costs in a
sensitivity analysis showed that the need to have TURP capital and reusable equipment always available
increased the cost in the laser arm by only £9.

The finding that the ThuVARP procedure took on average 21 minutes longer than the TURP procedure is
important to consider. This is the case both from a patient perspective, in terms of increased time under
anaesthetic, and from the perspective of service delivery. It is possible that a continued learning curve of
the ThuVARP procedure past assessment of competence had an impact on this finding; however, there
was no evidence of any learning curve effect. If this difference is maintained, then it is possible that an
additional small case could be added on to an operating list if TURPs are performed, which could have
implications for reducing waiting lists.

Qualitative study

The qualitative study investigated the participants’ experiences of both procedures in more depth and found
that participants reported satisfactory outcomes in the main, regardless of procedure. Similar journeys were
reported following both procedures. Participants described a period of uncertainty about whether or not
their expectations for outcome would be met, which preceded a largely satisfactory outcome. The period
of uncertainty was characterised by concerns regarding pain, bleeding and residual urinary symptoms.
Some negative influence on recovery of the participants’ mood was reported, but this had largely resolved
by the time of interview. Participants reported satisfaction overall with the outcome but highlighted that
understanding and being appropriately informed about what to expect during recovery were essential to
helping them cope with the recovery period.

Slower recovery associated with previous catheter use was intimated, which was perceived to be because
their bladder had had poorer function before the operation. Supported by conservative strategies, such as
pelvic floor exercises and medication where necessary, bladder function was perceived to have improved
or to be improving.

Most participants were delighted that their quality of life had been restored and for some this was quicker
than they had expected. A sentiment of returning to a more ‘youthful’ form was discussed. This exploration
highlighted that perceptions of male LUTS as ‘an old man’s problem’ remain entrenched. Engagement
with this group (the study population) to educate about these perceptions may be indicated in order to
encourage men to seek treatment that could benefit their lives.

Active enquiry about sexual matters was made. Participants who had experienced issues with their sex lives
either as a result of the surgery or that predated the intervention reported that they had been rarely asked
about this aspect and would like the opportunity to disclose this in order to receive appropriate signposting.

With regard to future practice, accurate information provision is key to patients’ satisfaction and expectations
about the outcome. Participants achieved their expected outcome regardless of procedure, with no evidence
of preference for one type of surgery. Exploration of de novo symptoms, such as those relating to sexual
matters, is welcome so that patients can receive appropriate guidance rather than feeling that they simply
have to ‘put up’ with their situation.

80
NIHR Journals Library www.journalslibrary.nihr.ac.uk
 DOI: 10.3310/hta24410 HEALTH TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT 2020 VOL. 24 NO. 41

Strengths and limitations

The main strength of this study is the successful recruitment to target, despite the challenges of consenting
patients to a trial in which randomisation happened at the point of surgery, and particularly at a time
when NHS trusts were experiencing significant pressures, with delays to elective surgery as a result of
operating theatre availability and hospital bed shortages, particularly during the winter months. In addition,
the number of patients who withdrew from the trial was small, and follow-up rates were exceptional.

In terms of blinding, this seems to have been successful as participants were not able to guess which
procedure they had received. This reduced the bias in subjective improvement of symptoms and quality of
life, and we would recommend this method of randomising at the point of patient anaesthesia for blinding
in future surgical trials where logistically possible.

An additional strength of this study was the inclusion of catheterised participants, who are logistically a
difficult population to include in trials of BPO surgery. The inclusion of these participants meant that
adjustment for baseline for the primary analysis was not possible; however, the trial team believe that this
is outweighed by the increased generalisability.

Limitations lay with the reporting of complications, with different qualities of reporting across staff and sites.
Interpretation of reporting criteria may have varied across sites and there is always an element of clinical
judgement, for example in defining what is a normal expectation for surgery and what is a complication.
Bleeding is a good example of where the level that constitutes a complication is subjective, as some degree
of bleeding would be expected during surgery. Therefore, the team focused on reporting bleeding to the
extent that haemoglobin levels needed to be checked for a possible blood transfusion, and whether or not
a blood transfusion was conducted. The team analysed the complications according to the main tick boxes
provided in the CRFs. The ‘other’ section was completed to varying degrees and therefore the decision
was taken to abandon these, while considering any serious adverse events which were reported separately.
However, it should be noted that the data on serious adverse events were collected for the purposes of
safety reporting during the trial and not as outcome data. Therefore, categorisation of expectedness and
relatedness has been determined by the principal investigators at the sites and not independently verified,
and levels of reporting also significantly varied across sites.

A further limitation lay in the measurement of prostate size, which was obtained by surgeons carrying out
digital rectal examination in the operating theatre before surgery but once the patient was anaesthetised.
We are aware that digital rectal examination is not an accurate measure of prostate size,58 and that a
transrectal ultrasound would have provided more accurate data. However, this trial has taken the pragmatic
approach of following routine care in the NHS, which usually involves only a digital rectal examination
before surgery. It should be noted that, in general, this did not affect clinical outcome, with only one
participant sent for emobilisation because he had a very large prostate. In general, rectal examination can
reveal a very large prostate, which would have deemed such patients as unsuitable for TURP and also may
indicate prostate cancer.

An additional limitation of randomising patients at the point of surgery was that the patients had to be
listed as either day case or inpatient before randomisation. Therefore, no differential could be made
between the two operations prior to randomisation. At two trial sites, a move had already been made to
conduct TURP procedures as day case, and therefore the majority of both procedures were listed as day
case. The other five trial sites listed all procedures as inpatient procedures. This trial was therefore not set
up so that sites could make a judgement on whether they wished to conduct either procedure as day case
or inpatient, but rather decisions had to be made that applied to both operations. In some respects this
is a limitation, as sites that would not have conducted TURP as a day-case procedure may have chosen
to conduct ThuVARP as a day-case procedure. However, in other respects it is a strength, as sites could
not apply any bias in whether they perceived one or the other operation to be conducted as day case.

© Queen’s Printer and Controller of HMSO 2020. This work was produced by Worthington et al. under the terms of a commissioning contract issued by the Secretary of State for
Health and Social Care. This issue may be freely reproduced for the purposes of private research and study and extracts (or indeed, the full report) may be included in professional
journals provided that suitable acknowledgement is made and the reproduction is not associated with any form of advertising. Applications for commercial reproduction should
81
be addressed to: NIHR Journals Library, National Institute for Health Research, Evaluation, Trials and Studies Coordinating Centre, Alpha House, University of Southampton Science
Park, Southampton SO16 7NS, UK.
 DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS

Ultimately, length of stay, after the patient has been listed as day case or inpatient, is determined by the
patient’s health status and therefore we believe that this trial presents a fair comparison of the
two procedures.

A statistical limitation was that the data collected at 3 months could not be made use of in the imputation
model, as originally planned, owing to modelling issues (collinearity and lack of convergence).

Overall evidence and generalisability

The results of this trial will undoubtedly play a part in future decision-making for doctors and patients
involved with treatment for LUTS. NICE in 2010 suggested that if offering surgery for managing voiding
LUTS presumed to be secondary to BPO, to only consider laser vaporisation techniques, bipolar transurethral
vaporisation of the prostate (TUVP) or monopolar or bipolar transurethral vaporisation resection of the
prostate as part of a RCT that compares these techniques with TURP. The UNBLOCS trial has undertaken
this recommendation for the ThuVARP technique.

The trial has shown that the ThuVARP and TURP procedures are equally effective in improving IPSS, and
although TURP is superior in improving maximum urine flow rate, both procedures improved urinary flow
to what is considered a clinically successful level. The two procedures also demonstrated very similar results
across virtually all other clinical and patient-reported outcomes. The results of the economic evaluation
indicate differences in costs and QALYs between the two arms, which could be a result of chance, with
the total adjusted mean secondary care cost for the ThuVARP arm only £9 more than the TURP arm, and a
QALY difference of 0.01 between the arms in favour of TURP. This marginal cost difference supports the
acceptability of both techniques within the NHS. It should be noted, however, that ThuVARP took on
average 21 minutes longer than TURP, which has implications for patients, in terms of an increased time
under anaesthetic, and for service delivery within the NHS. In addition, a higher proportion of ThuVARP
cases required conversion to TURP, which may indicate that both sets of equipment would need to be
available for conducting ThuVARP. However, the data overall suggest that both procedures are viable in
the UK NHS from a clinical and cost perspective.

The finding of a smaller improvement in Qmax levels after ThuVARP than after TURP is consistent with a
recent systematic review and meta-analysis59 comparing ThuVARP with TURP, as is a longer operating time
for ThuVARP. The anticipated benefits of the laser of reduced catheterisation time, length of hospital stay
and bleeding were not observed in this trial, contrary to the recent evidence review. However, the review is
based on the limited evidence available, it includes non-RCTs due to the lack of RCTs, and the majority of
its studies were conducted in Asia across different health systems.59

The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence also recommends monopolar transurethral vaporisation
of the prostate or HoLEP at centres specialising in the technique with mentorship arrangements in place due
to a long learning curve, reducing their generalisability. The short period of training that surgeons undertake
to achieve competence in ThuVARP demonstrates that the two techniques are similar in terms of the
operative skills required, and therefore its comparative ease of generalisability.

The trial also supports NICE’S recommendation of offering monopolar and bipolar transurethral resection
surgery of the prostate for managing voiding LUTS presumed secondary to BPO. There is no strong clinical
finding suggesting that ThuVARP is not an effective procedure for BPO, although TURP may have marginal
benefits. Findings from the UNBLOCS trial provide evidence that could be used to update the current NICE
guidelines on the efficacy of new technologies in the NHS.

The trial provides evidence about the risks of both procedures that can be used to update the literature,
allowing patients to be more informed at the point of consent about the risks of these procedures,
especially with regard to side effects. In addition, the result that serum sodium levels did not reduce

82
NIHR Journals Library www.journalslibrary.nihr.ac.uk
 DOI: 10.3310/hta24410 HEALTH TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT 2020 VOL. 24 NO. 41

significantly after surgery indicates that the routine review of urea and electrolytes and full blood counts
post TURP may not be necessary. This would have cost-saving implications for the NHS, as traditional
teaching suggests that these blood tests should be carried out after TURP. The trial will help to define a
pathway for patients undergoing endoscopic resections of the prostate.

Recommendations for research

l Longer-term follow-up of trial participants would demonstrate whether or not there is any sustained
difference between the arms in reoperation rates over time. This would provide a more comprehensive
perspective on whether or not the lower Qmax achieved by ThuVARP had any relevance in terms of
requiring further future interventions for LUTS especially at an earlier time span than TURP.
l Of interest would be future research into the comparative effectiveness of ThuVARP and TURP for
patients with large prostates of > 80 ml that are operable by specialists, which may extend the scope
of the operation further than current EAU guidelines.
l Comparison of the enucleation procedures using thulium and holmium lasers, as ThuVARP is easier to
learn and adopt compared with laser enucleation techniques.

Implications for health care

The trial provides evidence for the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of laser vaporesection of
the prostate compared with the gold-standard TURP in men with moderate to severe bothersome LUTS,
including urinary retention, who are considering surgery for BPO. The potential advantages of reduced
blood loss, shorter hospital stay and earlier return to normal activities have been thought to make laser
prostate resection techniques attractive to both patients and health-care providers, although there is
uncertainty about the extent of symptom improvement, and about improvement in quality of life in both
the short and the long term. The UNBLOCS RCT addressed these questions for the ThuVARP technique.

Both operations were shown to be effective for treating BPO. Although they were equivalent in terms
of IPSS, their equivalence could not be demonstrated in terms of Qmax, for which, despite a relatively
small difference in resulting flow rate, TURP was shown to be superior. The results generally suggest little
difference between this procedure and the standard TURP procedure from a clinical and an overall cost
point of view, although marginal benefits of TURP were indicated in terms of reduced operative time,
increased available histology for incidental cancer detection and a higher rate of patients undergoing their
randomised procedure. Both operations achieved a high level of patient satisfaction with surgery, and
improved quality of life, which is supported by the qualitative element of this study. Overall, the results
suggest that it may be appropriate that new treatment alternatives continue to be compared with TURP.

This study also provides the added benefit of up-to-date information on the patient-reported and clinical
outcomes associated with standard TURP, which can be used to inform clinical decisions and patient
expectations, the importance of which was highlighted in the qualitative element of this study.

© Queen’s Printer and Controller of HMSO 2020. This work was produced by Worthington et al. under the terms of a commissioning contract issued by the Secretary of State for
Health and Social Care. This issue may be freely reproduced for the purposes of private research and study and extracts (or indeed, the full report) may be included in professional
journals provided that suitable acknowledgement is made and the reproduction is not associated with any form of advertising. Applications for commercial reproduction should
83
be addressed to: NIHR Journals Library, National Institute for Health Research, Evaluation, Trials and Studies Coordinating Centre, Alpha House, University of Southampton Science
Park, Southampton SO16 7NS, UK.
 DOI: 10.3310/hta24410 HEALTH TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT 2020 VOL. 24 NO. 41

Acknowledgements
T he authors would like to thank all of the patients who participated in the UNBLOCS trial. We also thank
the members of the Trial Management Group, Trial Steering Committee and Data Monitoring and Ethics
Committee for their ongoing advice and support for the trial, and the principal investigators, research nurses
and their teams at the trial sites for all of their hard work and commitment. We would also like to thank our
independent assessor, Graham Watson (Consultant Urological Surgeon, Eastbourne), for independently
verifying the competence of all trial surgeons in the laser technique. Finally, we would like to thank the
National Institute for Health Research and the Health Technology Assessment programme for funding the
UNBLOCS trial.

This study was designed and delivered in collaboration with the Bristol Randomised Trials Collaboration,
a UKCRC-registered clinical trials unit that, as part of the Bristol Trials Centre, is in receipt of National
Institute for Health Research clinical trials unit support funding. The study data were collected and
managed using REDCap,60 hosted at the University of Bristol.

UNBLOCS Trial Group

Principal investigators: Rupert Beck, Christopher Blake, Kim Davenport, Hashim Hashim, Oliver Kayes,
Tobias Page, Jonathan Sullivan and Satchi Swami.

Trial manager: Jo Worthington.

Trial research associate: Hilary Taylor.

Senior trial manager/Bristol Randomised Trials Collaboration co-director: J Athene Lane.

Trial statisticians: Sara Brookes, Chris Metcalfe and Grace Young.

Urologists: Nicholas Cohen, Mathialagan Murugesan and Anthony Timoney.

Research nurse lead: Lyndsey Johnson.

Site research nurses: Benita Adams, Angela Allan, Carol Brain, Fiona Hammonds, Joan Henderson,
Paula Hilltout, Bernadette Kilbane, Leigh Morrison, Wendy Robson, Lorraine Wiseman and Vivian Zinyemba.

Qualitative researchers: Nikki Cotterill, Rafiyah Khan and Alan Uren.

Health economists: Aideen Ahern, Aida Moure Fernandez and Sian Noble.

Administrative support: Tom Steuart-Feilding, Christopher Pawsey, Julie Plant and Barbara Warnes.

Data management: Mai Baquedano and David Carmichael.

Trial sites and principal investigators

The NHS trusts participating as sites in the trial were:

l Gloucestershire Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust (principal investigator, Mr Jonathan Sullivan/Kim Davenport)
l Great Western Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust (principal investigator, Mr Rupert Beck)

© Queen’s Printer and Controller of HMSO 2020. This work was produced by Worthington et al. under the terms of a commissioning contract issued by the Secretary of State for
Health and Social Care. This issue may be freely reproduced for the purposes of private research and study and extracts (or indeed, the full report) may be included in professional
journals provided that suitable acknowledgement is made and the reproduction is not associated with any form of advertising. Applications for commercial reproduction should
85
be addressed to: NIHR Journals Library, National Institute for Health Research, Evaluation, Trials and Studies Coordinating Centre, Alpha House, University of Southampton Science
Park, Southampton SO16 7NS, UK.
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

l North Bristol NHS Trust (principal investigator, Professor Hashim Hashim)

l NHS Grampian (principal investigator, Mr Satchi Swami)
l Royal Cornwall Hospitals NHS Trust (principal investigator, Mr Christopher Blake)
l Leeds Teaching Hospital NHS Trust (principal investigator, Mr Oliver Kayes)
l Newcastle upon Tyne Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust (principal investigator, Mr Tobias Page).

Study oversight committees

We thank all the members of the study oversight committees for their valued contributions.

UNBLOCS Trial Steering Committee: Professor Tom McNicholas (Chairperson), Mr Malcolm Lucas,
Dr Catrin Tudur-Smith, Dr Gordon Taylor and Dr Glyn Hayes.

Data Monitoring and Ethics Committee: Dr Jonathan Cook, Mr Mohammed Belal and Mr Mark Stott.

Trial Management Group: Professor Hashim Hashim, Professor Athene Lane, Dr Sara Brookes, Professor
Chris Metcalfe, Dr Sian Noble, Mr Toby Page, Professor Paul Abrams, Dr Nikki Cotterill, Dr Jo Worthington,
Lyndsey Johnson and Hilary Taylor.

Contributions of authors

Jo Worthington (Trial Manager) was responsible for managing the trial throughout and contributed to
aspects of trial design, as well as preparing the first draft of the report.

J Athene Lane (Professor of Trials Research, Co-Director of the Bristol Randomised Trials Collaboration)
was a co-applicant. She contributed to the trial design, was involved in management of the study,
and contributed to writing the report.

Hilary Taylor (Research Associate) contributed to aspects of the trial design, and was involved in the
day-to-day management of the trial.

Grace Young (Senior Research Associate in Medical Statistics) was the trial statistician. She wrote the
statistical analysis plan, conducted the analysis and contributed to writing the report.

Sian M Noble (Senior Lecturer, Health Economics) was a co-applicant, and the lead health economist
for the trial. She was involved in designing, managing and conducting the health economic evaluation,
and contributed to writing the report.

Paul Abrams (Professor, Consultant Urological Surgeon) was a co-applicant. He contributed to the trial
design, was involved in management of the study, and contributed to writing the report.

Aideen Ahern (Research Associate, Health Economics) was involved in the conduct and analysis of the
economic evaluation.

Sara T Brookes (Senior Lecturer, Health Services Research and Medical Statistics) was a co-applicant.
She contributed to trial design, was the lead statistician for the majority of the trial, and contributed to
writing the report.

86
NIHR Journals Library www.journalslibrary.nihr.ac.uk
 DOI: 10.3310/hta24410 HEALTH TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT 2020 VOL. 24 NO. 41

Nikki Cotterill (Associate Professor in Continence Care) was a co-applicant, and the lead qualitative
researcher on the trial. She was involved in designing, managing and conducting the qualitative analysis,
and contributing to writing the report.

Lyndsey Johnson (Lead Research Nurse, Urology) was the research nurse lead for the trial, as well as
being involved in conducting the study at her respective study site.

Rafiyah Khan (Research Assistant, Qualitative Research) was involved in the conduct of the qualitative study.

Aida Moure Fernandez (Research Associate, Health Economics) was involved in the design and conduct
of the economic evaluation.

Tobias Page (Consultant Urological Surgeon) was a co-applicant. He contributed to the trial design and
management, as well as being a principal investigator responsible for implementation at his respective study site.

Satchi Swami (Consultant Urological Surgeon) was a co-applicant. He contributed to trial conduct issues,
as well as being a principal investigator responsible for implementation in his respective study site.

Hashim Hashim (Professor, Consultant Urological Surgeon) was chief investigator and clinical lead for the
trial and, as such, participated in its design, was responsible for oversight of the trial and was involved in
writing the report.

All authors read and approved and/or commented on the final report.

Publications

Ahern A, Worthington J, Hashim H, Lane JA, Taylor H, Young G, et al. The cost-effectiveness of thulium
laser transurethral vaporesection of the prostate versus transurethral resection of the prostate. Conference
abstract, The British Association of Urological Surgeons Annual Scientific Meeting 2019, 24–26 June 2019,
Glasgow, UK.

Cotterill N, Khan R, Uren A, Abrams P, Brookes S, Lane A, et al. “I have a life back” – the patient experience
of urinary obstruction interventions in the UNBLOCS randomised controlled trial. Podium presentation,
International Continence Society Annual Meeting 2019, 3–6 September 2019, Gothenburg, Sweden.

Hashim H, Lane JA, Worthington J, Noble S, Brooks S, Cotterill N, et al. Thulium laser transurethral
vaporesection of the prostate versus transurethral resection of the prostate: results of the UNBLOCS
randomized controlled trial. Poster presentation, EAU Conference (EAU 2019), 15–19 March 2019,
Barcelona, Spain.

Hashim H, Lane JA, Worthington J, Taylor H, Young G, Noble SM, et al. Thulium laser transurethral
vaporesection of the prostate versus transurethral resection of the prostate: results of the UNBLOCS
randomised controlled trial. Podium presentation, American Urological Association Annual Meeting,
3–6 May 2019, Chicago, IL, USA.

Hashim H, Worthington J, Abrams P, Young G, Taylor H, Noble SM, et al. Thulium laser transurethral
vaporesection of the prostate versus transurethral resection of the prostate for men with lower urinary
tract symptoms or urinary retention (UNBLOCS): a randomised controlled trial. Lancet 2020;396:50–61.

Noble SM, Ahern AM, Worthington J, Hashim H, Taylor H, Young GJ, et al. The cost‐effectiveness of
transurethral resection of the prostate vs thulium laser transurethral vaporesection of the prostate in the
UNBLOCS randomised controlled trial for benign prostatic obstruction. BJUI Int 2020.

© Queen’s Printer and Controller of HMSO 2020. This work was produced by Worthington et al. under the terms of a commissioning contract issued by the Secretary of State for
Health and Social Care. This issue may be freely reproduced for the purposes of private research and study and extracts (or indeed, the full report) may be included in professional
journals provided that suitable acknowledgement is made and the reproduction is not associated with any form of advertising. Applications for commercial reproduction should
87
be addressed to: NIHR Journals Library, National Institute for Health Research, Evaluation, Trials and Studies Coordinating Centre, Alpha House, University of Southampton Science
Park, Southampton SO16 7NS, UK.
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Data-sharing statement

All data requests should be submitted to the corresponding author for consideration. Access to anonymised
data may be granted following review.

Patient data

This work uses data provided by patients and collected by the NHS as part of their care and support. Using
patient data is vital to improve health and care for everyone. There is huge potential to make better use of
information from people’s patient records, to understand more about disease, develop new treatments,
monitor safety, and plan NHS services. Patient data should be kept safe and secure, to protect everyone’s
privacy, and it’s important that there are safeguards to make sure that it is stored and used responsibly.
Everyone should be able to find out about how patient data are used. #datasaveslives You can find out
more about the background to this citation here: https://understandingpatientdata.org.uk/data-citation.

88
NIHR Journals Library www.journalslibrary.nihr.ac.uk
 DOI: 10.3310/hta24410 HEALTH TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT 2020 VOL. 24 NO. 41

References
1. Worthington J, Taylor H, Abrams P, Brookes ST, Cotterill N, Noble SM, et al. A randomised
controlled trial to determine the clinical and cost effectiveness of thulium laser transurethral
vaporesection of the prostate (ThuVARP) versus transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP) in
the National Health Service (NHS) – the UNBLOCS trial: a study protocol for a randomised
controlled trial. Trials 2017;18:179. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13063-017-1916-5
2. Hashim H, Worthington J, Abrams P, Young G, Taylor H, Noble SM, et al. Thulium laser
transurethral vaporesection of the prostate versus transurethral resection of the prostate for men
with lower urinary tract symptoms or urinary retention (UNBLOCS): a randomised controlled trial.
Lancet 2020;396:50–61. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(20)30537-7
3. Hunter DJ, McKee M, Black NA, Sanderson CF. Health status and quality of life of British men with
lower urinary tract symptoms: results from the SF-36. Urology 1995;45:962–71. https://doi.org/
10.1016/S0090-4295(99)80116-2
4. McNicholas TA. Management of symptomatic BPH in the UK: who is treated and how? Eur Urol
1999;36(Suppl. 3):33–9. https://doi.org/10.1159/000052347
5. Rassweiler J, Teber D, Kuntz R, Hofmann R. Complications of transurethral resection of the
prostate (TURP) – incidence, management, and prevention. Eur Urol 2006;50:969–79.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2005.12.042
6. NHS Digital. NHS Classifications OPCS-4. Leeds: NHS Digital. URL: https://isd.digital.nhs.uk/trud3/
user/guest/group/0/pack/10 (accessed 18 September 2019).
7. Zhang X, Shen P, He Q, Yin X, Chen Z, Gui H, et al. Different lasers in the treatment of benign
prostatic hyperplasia: a network meta-analysis. Sci Rep 2016;6:23503. https://doi.org/10.1038/
srep23503
8. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE). Lower Urinary Tract Symptoms in Men:
Management. Clinical guideline [CG97]. London: NICE; 2010.
9. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE). GreenLight XPS for Treating Benign
Prostatic Hyperplasia. Medical technologies guidance [MTG29]. London: NICE; 2016.
10. Gilling PJ, Kennett K, Das AK, Thompson D, Fraundorfer MR. Holmium laser enucleation of the
prostate (HoLEP) combined with transurethral tissue morcellation: an update on the early clinical
experience. J Endourol 1998;12:457–9. https://doi.org/10.1089/end.1998.12.457
11. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE). Holmium Laster Prostatectomy. Interventional
procedures guidance [IPG17]. London: NICE; 2003. URL: www.nice.org.uk/Guidance/IPG17
(accessed 19 September 2019).
12. Fried NM, Murray KE. High-power thulium fiber laser ablation of urinary tissues at 1.94 microm.
J Endourol 2005;19:25–31. https://doi.org/10.1089/end.2005.19.25
13. Xia SJ, Zhuo J, Sun XW, Han BM, Shao Y, Zhang YN. Thulium laser versus standard transurethral
resection of the prostate: a randomized prospective trial. Eur Urol 2008;53:382–89. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.eururo.2007.05.019
14. Fu WJ, Zhang X, Yang Y, Hong BF, Gao JP, Cai W, et al. Comparison of 2-microm continuous
wave laser vaporesection of the prostate and transurethral resection of the prostate: a prospective
nonrandomized trial with 1-year follow-up. Urology 2010;75:194–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.urology.2009.07.1266

© Queen’s Printer and Controller of HMSO 2020. This work was produced by Worthington et al. under the terms of a commissioning contract issued by the Secretary of State for
Health and Social Care. This issue may be freely reproduced for the purposes of private research and study and extracts (or indeed, the full report) may be included in professional
journals provided that suitable acknowledgement is made and the reproduction is not associated with any form of advertising. Applications for commercial reproduction should
89
be addressed to: NIHR Journals Library, National Institute for Health Research, Evaluation, Trials and Studies Coordinating Centre, Alpha House, University of Southampton Science
Park, Southampton SO16 7NS, UK.
 REFERENCES

15. Herrmann TR, Liatsikos EN, Nagele U, Traxer O, Merseburger AS. EAU Guidelines Panel on Lasers,
Technologies. EAU guidelines on laser technologies. Eur Urol 2012;61:783–95. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.eururo.2012.01.010
16. Cui D, Sun F, Zhuo J, Sun X, Han B, Zhao F, et al. A randomized trial comparing thulium laser
resection to standard transurethral resection of the prostate for symptomatic benign prostatic
hyperplasia: four-year follow-up results. World J Urol 2014;32:683–9. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s00345-013-1103-6
17. Zhang F, Shao Q, Herrmann TR, Tian Y, Zhang Y. Thulium laser versus holmium laser transurethral
enucleation of the prostate: 18-month follow-up data of a single center. Urology 2012;79:869–74.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urology.2011.12.018
18. Young GMC, Worthington J, Cook J, Hashim H. Statistical Analysis Plan for the UNBLOCS Trial:
Version 1.0 (22.11.17). URL: https://research-information.bristol.ac.uk/files/140090744/UNBLOCS_
Statistical_Analysis_Plan_v1.0_22.11.17_FINAL.pdf (accessed 19 September 2019).
19. Dindo D, Demartines N, Clavien PA. Classification of surgical complications: a new proposal with
evaluation in a cohort of 6336 patients and results of a survey. Ann Surg 2004;240:205–13.
https://doi.org/10.1097/01.sla.0000133083.54934.ae
20. Barry MJ, Cantor A, Roehrborn CG, CAMUS Study Group. Relationships among participant
international prostate symptom score, benign prostatic hyperplasia impact index changes and
global ratings of change in a trial of phytotherapy in men with lower urinary tract symptoms.
J Urol 2013;189:987–92. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2012.08.257
21. Hammadeh MY, Madaan S, Hines J, Philp T. 5-year outcome of a prospective randomized trial to
compare transurethral electrovaporization of the prostate and standard transurethral resection.
Urology 2003;61:1166–71. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0090-4295(03)00109-2
22. Montorsi F, Naspro R, Salonia A, Suardi N, Briganti A, Zanoni M, et al. Holmium laser enucleation
versus transurethral resection of the prostate: results from a 2-center, prospective, randomized trial
in patients with obstructive benign prostatic hyperplasia. J Urol 2004;172:1926–9. https://doi.org/
10.1097/01.ju.0000140501.68841.a1
23. Schumi J, Wittes JT. Through the looking glass: understanding non-inferiority. Trials 2011;12:106.
https://doi.org/10.1186/1745-6215-12-106
24. Schoenfeld D. Chi-squared goodness of fit tests for the proportional hazards regression model.
Biometrika 1980;67:145–53. https://doi.org/10.1093/biomet/67.1.145
25. Donovan JL, Hamdy FC, Lane JA, Mason M, Metcalfe C, Walsh E, et al. Patient-reported outcomes
after monitoring, surgery, or radiotherapy for prostate cancer. N Engl J Med 2016;375:1425–37.
https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa1606221
26. International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS). URL: www.urospec.com/uro/Forms/ipss.pdf
(accessed 18 March 2018).
27. White IR, Royston P, Wood AM. Multiple imputation using chained equations: issues and guidance
for practice. Stat Med 2011;30:377–99. https://doi.org/10.1002/sim.4067
28. Piaggio G, Elbourne DR, Pocock SJ, Evans SJ, Altman DG, CONSORT Group. Reporting of
noninferiority and equivalence randomized trials: extension of the CONSORT 2010 statement.
JAMA 2012;308:2594–604. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2012.87802
29. Noble SM, Ahern AM, Worthington J, Hashim H, Taylor H, Young GJ, et al. The cost-effectiveness
of transurethral resection of the prostate vs thulium laser transurethral vaporesection of the
prostate in the UNBLOCS randomised controlled trial for benign prostatic obstruction. BJUI Int
2020. https://doi.org/10.1111/bju.15138

90
NIHR Journals Library www.journalslibrary.nihr.ac.uk
 DOI: 10.3310/hta24410 HEALTH TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT 2020 VOL. 24 NO. 41

30. van Hout B, Janssen MF, Feng YS, Kohlmann T, Busschbach J, Golicki D, et al. Interim scoring for
the EQ-5D-5L: mapping the EQ-5D-5L to EQ-5D-3L value sets. Value Health 2012;15:708–15.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jval.2012.02.008
31. NHS Improvement. NHS Reference Costs 2016/17. URL: https://improvement.nhs.uk/resources/
reference-costs/ (accessed 18 March 2018).
32. Curtis L, Burns A. Unit Costs of Health and Social Care 2017. Canterbury: Personal Social Services
Research Unit, University of Kent; 2017.
33. Curtis L. Unit Costs of Health and Social Care 2013. Canterbury: Personal Social Services Research
Unit, University of Kent; 2013.
34. Curtis L, Burns A. Unit Costs of Health and Social Care 2015. Canterbury: Personal Social Services
Research Unit, University of Kent; 2015.
35. Pope C, Turnbull J, Jones J, Prichard J, Rowsell A, Halford S. Has the NHS 111 urgent care
telephone service been a success? Case study and secondary data analysis in England. BMJ Open
2017;7:e014815. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2016-014815
36. HM Revenue and Customs. Travel – Mileage and Fuel Rates and Allowances. URL: www.gov.uk/
government/publications/rates-and-allowances-travel-mileage-and-fuel-allowances/travel-mileage-
and-fuel-rates-and-allowances (accessed 12 September 2018).
37. NHS Business Services Authority. NHS Drug Tariff. URL: www.nhsbsa.nhs.uk/pharmacies-gp-
practices-and-appliance-contractors/drug-tariff (accessed 13 September 2018).
38. World Health Organization. International Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revision. Geneva:
World Health Organization; 2016. URL: www.who.int/classifications/icd/icdonlineversions/en/
(accessed 18 September 2019).
39. Drummond MF. Methods for the Economic Evaluation of Health Care Programmes. 3rd edn.
Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2005.
40. Dolan P. Modeling valuations for EuroQol health states. Med Care 1997;35:1095–108.
https://doi.org/10.1097/00005650-199711000-00002
41. Joint Formulary Committee. British National Formulary (online). London: BMJ Group and
Pharmaceutical Press. URL: https://bnf.nice.org.uk/ (accessed 13 September 2018).
42. Manca A, Hawkins N, Sculpher MJ. Estimating mean QALYs in trial-based cost-effectiveness
analysis: the importance of controlling for baseline utility. Health Econ 2005;14:487–96.
https://doi.org/10.1002/hec.944
43. Marques E, Johnson EC, Gooberman-Hill R, Blom AW, Noble S. Using resource use logs to reduce the
amount of missing data in economic evaluations alongside trials. Value Health 2013;16:195–201.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jval.2012.09.008
44. Al-Busaidi ZQ. Qualitative research and its uses in health care. Sultan Qaboos Univ Med J
2008;8:11–19.
45. Lewin S, Glenton C, Oxman AD. Use of qualitative methods alongside randomised controlled trials
of complex healthcare interventions: methodological study. BMJ 2009;339:b3496. https://doi.org/
10.1136/bmj.b3496
46. Hudak PL, McKeever PD, Wright JG. Understanding the meaning of satisfaction with treatment
outcome. Med Care 2004;42:718–25. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.mlr.0000132398.11342.a8
47. Braun V, Clark V. Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qual Res Psychol 2006;3:77–101.
https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa
48. Fusch PI, Ness LR. Are we there yet? Data saturation in qualitative research. Qual Rep 2015;20:1408.

© Queen’s Printer and Controller of HMSO 2020. This work was produced by Worthington et al. under the terms of a commissioning contract issued by the Secretary of State for
Health and Social Care. This issue may be freely reproduced for the purposes of private research and study and extracts (or indeed, the full report) may be included in professional
journals provided that suitable acknowledgement is made and the reproduction is not associated with any form of advertising. Applications for commercial reproduction should
91
be addressed to: NIHR Journals Library, National Institute for Health Research, Evaluation, Trials and Studies Coordinating Centre, Alpha House, University of Southampton Science
Park, Southampton SO16 7NS, UK.
 REFERENCES

49. Irwin DE, Milsom I, Hunskaar S, Reilly K, Kopp Z, Herschorn S, et al. Population-based survey of
urinary incontinence, overactive bladder, and other lower urinary tract symptoms in five countries:
results of the EPIC study. Eur Urol 2006;50:1306–14. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2006.09.019
50. Cobussen-Boekhorst H, Hermeling E, Heesakkers J, van Gaal B. Patients’ experience with
intermittent catheterisation in everyday life. J Clin Nurs 2016;25:1253–61. https://doi.org/10.1111/
jocn.13146
51. Gadow S. Body and self: a dialectic. J Med Philos 1980;5:172–85. https://doi.org/10.1093/jmp/5.3.172
52. Taylor AW, Wilson DH, Wakefield M. Differences in health estimates using telephone and
door-to-door survey methods – a hypothetical exercise. Aust N Z J Public Health 1998;22:223–6.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-842X.1998.tb01177.x
53. Burgio KL, Brubaker L, Richter HE, Wai CY, Litman HJ, France DB, et al. Patient satisfaction with
stress incontinence surgery. Neurourol Urodyn 2010;29:1403–9. https://doi.org/10.1002/nau.20877
54. Hamilton DF, Lane JV, Gaston P, Patton JT, Macdonald D, Simpson AH, Howie CR. What
determines patient satisfaction with surgery? A prospective cohort study of 4709 patients following
total joint replacement. BMJ Open 2013;3:e002525. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2012-002525
55. NICE. NICE Guideline [NG131]. London: NICE; 2019.
56. NHS Digital. Hospital Admitted Patient Care Activity, 2013–14. URL: https://webarchive.
nationalarchives.gov.uk/20190305041047/https://digital.nhs.uk/data-and-information/publications/
statistical/hospital-admitted-patient-care-activity/hospital-episode-statistics-admitted-patient-care-
england-2013-14 (accessed 18 September 2019).
57. NHS Digital. Hospital Admitted Patient Care Activity, 2016–17. URL: https://digital.nhs.uk/data-and-
information/publications/statistical/hospital-admitted-patient-care-activity/2016-17 (accessed
18 September 2019).
58. Loeb S, Han M, Roehl KA, Antenor JA, Catalona WJ. Accuracy of prostate weight estimation by
digital rectal examination versus transrectal ultrasonography. J Urol 2005;173:63–5. https://doi.org/
10.1097/01.ju.0000145883.01068.5f
59. Deng Z, Sun M, Zhu Y, Zhuo J, Zhao F, Xia S, et al. Thulium laser VapoResection of the prostate
versus traditional transurethral resection of the prostate or transurethral plasmakinetic resection
of prostate for benign prostatic obstruction: a systematic review and meta-analysis. World J Urol
2018;36:1355–64. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-018-2287-6
60. Harris PA, Taylor R, Thielke R, Payne J, Gonzalez N, Conde JG. Research electronic data capture
(REDCap) – a metadata-driven methodology and workflow process for providing translational
research informatics support. J Biomed Inform 2009;42:377–81. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.jbi.2008.08.010

92
NIHR Journals Library www.journalslibrary.nihr.ac.uk
 DOI: 10.3310/hta24410 HEALTH TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT 2020 VOL. 24 NO. 41

Appendix 1 Patient- and productivity-related

resource use

© Queen’s Printer and Controller of HMSO 2020. This work was produced by Worthington et al. under the terms of a commissioning contract issued by the Secretary of State for
Health and Social Care. This issue may be freely reproduced for the purposes of private research and study and extracts (or indeed, the full report) may be included in professional
journals provided that suitable acknowledgement is made and the reproduction is not associated with any form of advertising. Applications for commercial reproduction should
93
be addressed to: NIHR Journals Library, National Institute for Health Research, Evaluation, Trials and Studies Coordinating Centre, Alpha House, University of Southampton Science
Park, Southampton SO16 7NS, UK.
 94
NIHR Journals Library www.journalslibrary.nihr.ac.uk

APPENDIX 1
TABLE 37 Resource use and costs from the patient and societal perspective

Trial arm

ThuVARP TURP

Resource category (resource use unit) n Mean resource use (SD) Mean cost (SD) (£) n Mean resource use (SD) Mean cost (SD) (£)

Car miles (number) 109 8.97 (27.78) 4.04 (12.50) 113 10.74 (28.99) 4.83 (13.05)

Car parking events (number) 109 0.06 (0.23) 0.35 (1.62) 113 0.05 (0.22) 0.46 (2.06)

Fares (number) 109 0.02 (0.14) 0.32 (2.38) 113 0.00 (0.00) 0.00 (0.00)

Prescriptions (number) 137 0.03 (0.24) 0.95 (9.14) 143 0.05 (0.32) 1.40 (14.00)

Over-the-counter medications (number) 144 0.08 (0.28) 0.08 (0.28) 151 0.11 (0.35) 0.11 (0.35)

Incontinence pads or pants 116 11.75 (33.58) 9.56 (43.53) 129 8.63 (24.64) 3.48 (11.89)
Major expenses (number) 144 0.12 (0.54) 5.67 (29.51) 151 0.02 (0.18) 4.37 (38.36)

Home care visits (number of minutes) 144 0.35 (4.17) 0.10 (1.25) 150 4.05 (48.99) 1.22 (14.70)

Unpaid time off work (number of days) 104 0.00 (0.00) 0.00 (0.00) 114 0.00 (0.00) 0.00 (0.00)

Paid time off work (number of days) 105 0.03 (0.29) 1.50 (15.37) 114 0.00 (0.00) 0.00 (0.00)

Time off leisure (number of hours) 132 15.70 (50.37) 117.73 (377.77) 137 20.85 (70.71) 156.35 (530.35)

Support from relatives/friends (number of hours) 131 24.96 (223.07) 187.21 (1673.03) 138 7.19 (29.61) 53.91 (222.09)
 DOI: 10.3310/hta24410 HEALTH TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT 2020 VOL. 24 NO. 41

Appendix 2 Qualitative interview schedule

Interview schedule: version 4 – 9 May 2016

Lower urinary tract symptoms/retention experience

l Begin with a description of your urinary symptoms before surgery? (LUTS/retention/nocturia).

l What effect did this have on your daily life? How did you feel about that?
l What about other aspects of your life? (Socialising, work-life?)
l Were you using any aids to manage these symptoms? (Medication, catheter, pads).
l What influenced your decision to get surgery? How did you expect the procedure and recovery to
go? Why?

Perioperative experience

l Describe the day of your surgery? How did you feel?

l Following the procedure how did you feel (physically/psychologically)?
l What was the remainder of your hospital stay like? (Complications?) Did you feel that the surgery had
gone well at that point? Why?

Immediate postoperative experience

l During the first few days following discharge, how did you feel? What were your symptoms like?
Were you satisfied at this stage?
l Were you able to continue with your daily life?
l At what point did you feel that your symptoms had improved? Was this expected?
l Following on from that, describe the first few weeks following the procedure? Were you able to
maintain many activities? Social, physical, etc (pinpoint specific point at which they were able to do
certain things).

Outcome

l Describe current symptoms at a few months post-surgery. (Explore how this has changed from the
previous two answers.)
l Throughout the recovery, were there many changes to your symptoms? In what way did these affect
you? Did you feel satisfied during these stages? Why?
l In what way have different aspects of your life been affected since then?
l Are there any factors that could have affected your recovery? (further illness, life changes, etc.)

Satisfaction

l Are you satisfied with how your surgery went? Did it meet your expectations?

¢ What in particular makes you happy with the outcome?

¢ What would have made you satisfied with the outcome?

l Are you happy with your symptoms now going forward?

l Do you have any idea which procedure you were randomised to? Why do you think this?
l How would you describe the experience to a family member about to go through the same operation?
l Do you have any suggestions that would have improved your overall surgery experience?

© Queen’s Printer and Controller of HMSO 2020. This work was produced by Worthington et al. under the terms of a commissioning contract issued by the Secretary of State for
Health and Social Care. This issue may be freely reproduced for the purposes of private research and study and extracts (or indeed, the full report) may be included in professional
journals provided that suitable acknowledgement is made and the reproduction is not associated with any form of advertising. Applications for commercial reproduction should
95
be addressed to: NIHR Journals Library, National Institute for Health Research, Evaluation, Trials and Studies Coordinating Centre, Alpha House, University of Southampton Science
Park, Southampton SO16 7NS, UK.
EME
HS&DR
HTA
PGfAR
PHR
Part of the NIHR Journals Library
www.journalslibrary.nihr.ac.uk

This report presents independent research funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR).
The views expressed are those of the author(s) and not necessarily those of the NHS, the NIHR or the
Department of Health and Social Care

Published by the NIHR Journals Library