Prostate neoplasia affects more than one million people worldwide. Surgical treatments have evolved from open or video prostatectomy, up to the High Intensity Focused Ultrasound (HIFU) technique. HIFU studies cite less costs and better quality of life during the first year of follow-up. The objective of this study is to describe a consecutive series of eligible patients, with Gleason score 6 and 7, and compare resources used along those three treatment techniques.

A comparative and retrospective study was conducted during the first 2017 semester, at Hospital de Transplantes de São Paulo, São Paulo city, Brazil. Consecutive eligible patients were matched by age, disease stage and profile and Gleason score 6 or 7. Resources used were assessed through medical records review and in- and out-patient visit interviews.

A total of 152 patients were followed: 50 underwent open surgery prostatectomy, 50 underwent video prostatectomy and 52 underwent HIFU. Mean age did not differ between groups (66.6, 64.1 and 65.6 years, respectively). All patients were followed for at least three months. The average operating room time was 4.7, 4.1 and 2.3 hours, and the average anesthetic recovery time was 2.0, 1.9 and 2.0 hours, respectively. Average inpatient length of stay was 2.5, 2.7 and 1.5 days, respectively. Postoperatively, nine (18 percent) open surgery patients, and 14 (28 percent) video-prostatectomy patients required an average of one full day of intensive care, compared to only one (2 percent) HIFU patient. During follow-up, the same effectiveness was observed between the groups, none required re-intervention. Thus, considering the 50 percent economy in hours of operating room and of days of hospital stay, as well as 10 times less use of intensive care unit days when the HIFU technique was compared to conventional surgeries, it is estimated the HIFU program allowed 30 percent cost savings.

The HIFU program presented effectiveness and savings. The hospital can increase access to care for prostate neoplasia patients.