Search

Objective: To perform a cost-effectiveness evaluation comparing the management options for mid-size (1-2cm) renal stones including percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL), retrograde intrarenal surgery (RIRS), and shockwave lithotripsy (SWL)., Methods: A Markov model was created to compare cost-effectiveness of PCNL, mini-PCNL, RIRS, and SWL for 1-2cm lower pole (index patient 1) and PCNL, RIRS, and SWL for 1-2 cm non-lower pole (index patient 2) renal stones. A literature review provided stone free, complication, retreatment, secondary procedure rates, and quality adjusted life years (QALYs). Medicare costs were used. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was compared with a willingness-to-pay(WTP) threshold of $100,000/QALY. One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed., Results: At 3 years, costs for index patient 1 were $10,290(PCNL), $10,109(mini-PCNL), $5,930(RIRS), and $10,916(SWL). Mini-PCNL resulted in the highest QALYs(2.953) followed by PCNL(2.951), RIRS(2.946), and SWL(2.943). This translated to RIRS being most cost-effective followed by mini-PCNL(ICER $624,075/QALY) and PCNL(ICER $946,464/QALY). SWL was dominated with higher costs and lower effectiveness. For index patient 2, RIRS dominated both PCNL and SWL. For index patient 1: mini-PCNL and PCNL became cost effective if cost ≤$5,940 and ≤$5,390, respectively. SWL became cost-effective with SFR ≥75% or cost ≤$1,236. On probabilistic sensitivity analysis, the most cost-effective strategy was RIRS in 97%, mini-PCNL in 2%, PCNL in 1%, and SWL in 0% of simulations., Conclusion: For 1-2cm renal stones, RIRS is most cost-effective. However, mini and standard PCNL could become cost-effective at lower costs, particularly for lower pole stones., (Published by Elsevier Inc.)

Objective: To perform a comparative analysis of indirect and direct costs of two minimally invasive techniques (extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL) vs. ureteroscopy with holmium laser (URS/RIRS)) for the treatment of renal/ureteral calculi smaller than 2 cm., Material and Methods: Prospective, comparative, non-randomized study of 84 patients treated for kidney stones smaller than 2 cm between January and December 2016. Of these, 38 (45.67%) were treated with ESWL (18 renal lithiasis and 20 ureteral lithiasis) and 46 (54.32%) with URS/RIRS (22 renal lithiasis and 24 ureteral lithiasis). A total of 19 (41.3%) patients in the URS/RIRS group and 15 (39.5%) patients in the ESWL group were actively working before treatment. The variables analyzed were sex, age, number and size of lithiasis, time (days) off from work due to treatment, estimate of indirect cost due to labor productivity loss and direct treatment costs including follow-up (total number of procedures, ancillary care, visits and diagnostic tests). The 2015 Wage Structure Survey (INE) was used to estimate the indirect cost. In addition, the «Work Productivity and Activity Impairment» (WPAI) questionnaire was also used to determine the level of perceived productivity loss., Results: The mean number of sessions until lithiasis resolution was achieved was 2.57 for the ESWL group and 1.04 for the URS. The mean number of days off from work in the URS group was 7.16 days and 3.18 (p = 0.034) in the ESWL group. The total indirect costs resulting from productivity loss were EUR 621.55 and EUR 276.05 for the URS and ESWL, respectively. Direct costs in the ESWL group were EUR 1,382.9 and EUR 2,317.71 in the URS group. The level of work impairment perceived by patients undergoing URS was 18.88% and 21.33% in the ESWL group. The degree of impairment for performing activities of daily living was 24.44% in the URS and 15% in ESWL., Conclusions: The ESWL technique requires a higher number of sessions for the resolution of kidney stones under 2 cm, but it has a lower impact on total costs and on the perceived degree of affectation., (Copyright © 2020 AEU. Publicado por Elsevier España, S.L.U. All rights reserved.)

Introduction: Renal stones are common, with a lifetime prevalence of 10% in adults. Global incidence is increasing due to increases in obesity and diabetes, with these patient populations being more likely to suffer renal stone disease. Flank pain from stones (renal colic) is the most common cause of emergency admission to UK urology departments. Stones most commonly develop in the lower pole of the kidney (in ~35% of cases) and here are least likely to pass without intervention. Currently there are three technologies available within the UK National Health Service to remove lower pole kidney stones: extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy (ESWL), percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL) and flexible ureterorenoscopy (FURS) with laser lithotripsy. Current evidence indicates there is uncertainty regarding the management of lower pole stones, and each treatment has advantages and disadvantages. The aim of this trial is to determine the clinical and cost effectiveness of FURS compared with ESWL or PCNL in the treatment of lower pole kidney stones., Methods: The PUrE (PCNL, FURS and ESWL for lower pole kidney stones) trial is a multi-centre, randomised controlled trial (RCT) evaluating FURS versus ESWL or PCNL for lower pole kidney stones. Patients aged ≥16 years with a stone(s) in the lower pole of either kidney confirmed by non-contrast computed tomography of the kidney, ureter and bladder (CTKUB) and requiring treatment for a stone ≤10 mm will be randomised to receive FURS or ESWL (RCT1), and those requiring treatment for a stone >10 mm to ≤25 mm will be randomised to receive FURS or PCNL (RCT2). Participants will undergo follow-up by questionnaires every week up to 12 weeks post-intervention and at 12 months post-randomisation. The primary clinical outcome is health status measured by the area under the curve calculated from multiple measurements of the EuroQol five dimensions five-level version (EQ-5D-5L) questionnaire up to 12 weeks post-intervention. The primary economic outcome is the incremental cost per quality-adjusted life year gained at 12 months post-randomisation., Discussion: The PUrE trial aims to provide robust evidence on health status, quality of life, clinical outcomes and resource use to directly inform choice and National Health Service provision of the three treatment options., Trial Registration: ISRCTN: ISRCTN98970319. Registered on 11 November 2015.

Objectives: To compare the total cost of a treatment strategy starting with ureteroscopy (URS) vs a strategy starting with extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy (ESWL)., Methods: For ureteric stones of <10 mm, URS or ESWL are the main treatment options that are considered. Although the interventions differ, the goal of the interventions is to achieve a stone-free status. A systematic review and meta-analysis undertaken as part of the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) guideline on 'Renal and ureteric stones: assessment and management' identified URS as more effective, in terms of getting people stone free, but has a higher probability of re-admission and adverse events (AEs) that contributes to downstream resource use. ESWL is initially less costly, but lower effectiveness means a greater need for repeat or ancillary procedures in order to get a patient stone free. Given these trade-offs between benefits and costs, a cost analysis of URS and ESWL was undertaken as part of the NICE guideline, using evidence from the literature of effectiveness, re-admission and AEs. The NICE guideline meta-analysis showed a lot of heterogeneity and differences in how outcomes were reported between studies. The costing analysis, therefore only used studies where: (i) patients were rendered stone free, and (ii) where effectiveness, was based on the first-line (initial) procedures. Exploratory quality adjusted life year (QALY) work was also undertaken to identify the QALY and quality of life (QoL) differences required for the most expensive intervention to be cost effective, based on the assumption that the difference in effectiveness between the initial procedures would be the main source of the QALY gain between the two strategies., Results: The URS strategy was more costly overall than the ESWL strategy (incremental cost of £2387 [pounds sterling]). Sensitivity analysis varying the initial effectiveness of ESWL treatment (between the base case value of 82% and 40%) showed that URS would still be a more costly strategy even if the initial session of ESWL only had a success probability of 40%. A two-way sensitivity analysis as part of the exploratory QALY work showed that ESWL would have to have very low effectiveness and people would have to wait for further treatment for many weeks (following a failed ESWL treatment) for there to be feasible QoL gains to justify the additional cost of the URS strategy., Conclusions: ESWL is less effective at initial stone clearance and therefore requires more ancillary interventions than URS. However, the magnitude of the difference in costs means URS is unlikely to be cost effective intervention at a population level for first-line treatment, implying ESWL should be the first choice treatment., (© 2019 The Authors BJU International © 2019 BJU International Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Objective: To determine the most cost-effective approach to the management of distal ureteral stones in children given the potential for recurrent renal colic during a trial of passage versus potential stent discomfort and complications of ureteroscopy., Methods: We developed a decision tree to project costs and clinical outcomes associated with observation, medical explusive therapy (MET), and ureteroscopy for the management of an index patient with a 4-mm-distal ureteral stone. We determined which strategy would be least costly and offer the most pain-free days within 30days of diagnosis. We performed a one-way sensitivity analysis on the probability of successful stone passage with MET. We obtained probabilities from the literature and costs from the 2016 Pediatric Health Information System Database., Results: Ureteroscopy was the costliest strategy but maximized the number of pain-free days within 30days of diagnosis ($5282/29 pain-free days). MET was less costly than ureteroscopy but also less effective ($615/21.8 pain-free days). Observation cost more than MET and was also less effective ($2139/15.5 pain-free days). The one-way sensitivity analysis on the probability of successful stone passage with MET demonstrated that ureteroscopy always has the highest net monetary benefits value and is therefore the recommended strategy given a fixed willingness-to-pay., Discussion: Using a rigorous decision-science approach, we found that ureteroscopy is the recommended strategy in children with small distal ureteral stones. Although it costs more than MET, it resulted in more pain-free days in the first 30days following diagnosis given the faster resolution of the stone episode., (Copyright © 2019 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Purpose: To explore regional adoption of ureteroscopy (URS) over extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy (SWL) in the state of California (CA) and to identify factors associated with this adoption over time., Materials and Methods: We used the California Office of Statewide Health Planning and Development (OSHPD) public data to identify URS and SWL procedures performed for renal and ureteral stones from 2005 to 2016. The level of analysis was the region wherein each procedure was performed, defined by the 19 CA labor market regions. OSHPD data were supplemented with the Area Health Resource File to provide information on regional characteristics. Generalized linear regression was used to determine procedural rates adjusted for age, gender and race. Choropleth time series maps were used to illustrate adoption of URS by region over time., Results: A total of 328,795 URS and SWL procedures were identified from 2005 to 2016. The number of URS procedures surpassed the number of SWL procedures in 2011. Fourteen regions became URS predominant by 2016 and were characterized as having a higher per capita income, higher percentages with a college education and lower percentage of female heads-of-household (all p-values <0.05). A higher percentage of patients in these regions were male and had private or Medicare insurance (p = 0.03 for both)., Conclusions: From 2005 to 2016, most CA regions adopted URS as the primary renal and ureteral stone management strategy. These regions demonstrated characteristics of higher socioeconomic status compared to regions that remained SWL predominant. A better understanding of such differences in practice patterns will allow urologists to better negotiate for the capital expenditures required to conform to evolving standards of care and allow patients the ability to make more informed decisions on where they receive care.

Introduction: A rising incidence of kidney stone disease has led to an increase in ureteroscopy (URS) and shock wave lithotripsy (SWL). Our aim was to compare the cost of URS and SWL for treatment of stones., Methods: A systematic review and meta-analysis based on Cochrane and PRISMA standards was conducted for all studies reporting on comparative cost of treatment between URS and SWL. The cost calculation was based on factual data presented in the individual studies as reported by the authors. English language articles from January 2001 to December 2017 using Medline, PubMed, EMBASE, CINAHL, Cochrane library and Google Scholar were selected. Our study was registered with PROSPERO (International prospective register of systematic reviews)-registration number CRD 42017080350., Results: A total of 12 studies involving 2012 patients (SWL-1243, URS-769) were included after initial identification and screening of 725 studies with further assessment of 27 papers. The mean stone size was 10 and 11 mm for SWL and URS, respectively, with stone location in the proximal ureter (n = 8 studies), distal ureter (n = 1), all locations in the ureter (n = 1) and in the kidney (n = 2). Stone free rates (84 vs. 60%) were favourable for URS compared to SWL (p < 0.001). Complication rates (23 vs. 30%) were non-significantly in favor of SWL (p = 0.11) whereas re-treatment rates (11 vs. 27%) were non-significantly in favor of URS (p = 0.29). Mean overall cost was significantly lower for URS ($2801) compared to SWL ($3627) (p = 0.03). The included studies had high risk of bias overall. On sub-analysis, URS was significantly cost-effective for both stones  < 10 and  ≥ 10 mm and for proximal ureteric stones., Conclusion: There is limited evidence to suggest that URS is less expensive than SWL. However, due to lack of standardization, studies seem to be contradictory and further randomized studies are needed to address this issue.

Background: Urinary stone disease is very common with an estimated prevalence among the general population of 2-3%. Ureteric stones are associated with severe pain as they pass through the urinary tract and have significant impact on patients' quality of life due to the detrimental effect on their ability to work and need for hospitalisation. Most ureteric stones can be expected to pass spontaneously with supportive care. However, between one-fifth and one-third of cases require an intervention. The two standard active intervention options are extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy (ESWL) and ureteroscopic stone retrieval. ESWL and ureteroscopy are effective in terms of stone clearance; however, they differ in terms of invasiveness, anaesthetic requirement, treatment setting, complications, patient-reported outcomes (e.g. pain after intervention, time off work) and cost. There is uncertainty around which is the most clinically effective in terms of stone clearance and the true cost to the NHS and to society (in terms of impact on patient-reported health and economic burden). The aim of this trial is to determine whether, in adults with ureteric stones, judged to require active intervention, ESWL is not inferior and is more cost-effective compared to ureteroscopic treatment as the initial management option., Methods: The TISU study is a pragmatic multicentre non-inferiority randomised controlled trial of ESWL as the first treatment option compared with direct progression to ureteroscopic treatment for ureteric stones. Patients aged over 16 years with a ureteric stone confirmed by non-contrast computed tomography of the kidney, ureter and bladder (CTKUB) will be randomised to either ESWL or ureteroscopy. The primary clinical outcome is resolution of the stone episode (no further intervention required to facilitate stone clearance) up to six months from randomisation. The primary economic outcome is the incremental cost per quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) gained at six months from randomisation., Discussion: Determining whether ESWL is not inferior clinically and is cost-effective compared to ureteroscopic treatment as the initial management in adults with ureteric stones who are judged to require active treatment is relevant not only to patients and clinicians but also to healthcare providers, both in the UK and globally., Trial Registration: ISRCTN registry, ISRCTN92289221 . Registered on 21 February 2013.

Introduction: To assess the clinical features, outcomes, complications, and cost-effectiveness of shockwave lithotripsy (SWL), flexible ureterorenoscopy (FURS), and percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL) in the treatment of lower pole (LP) stones (10-20 mm) in a large tertiary referral center., Patients and Methods: Consecutive patients treated for solitary LP stones (10-20 mm) between 2008 and 2013 were identified from a prospective database. SWL was used as primary treatment in all cases (following a stone multidisciplinary team assessment), with FURS and PCNL reserved for SWL contraindications, failure, or patient choice. "Success" was defined as stone free and/or clinically insignificant stone fragments (≤3 mm) at 1 and 3 months follow-up. Effect of anatomy on SWL success was determined from using CT images and regression analysis. Average cost per treatment modality (including additional second-line treatments) was calculated for each group using the National Health Service England 2014/15 National Tariff Healthcare Resource Group codes., Results: Two hundred twenty-five patients were included (mean age 54.9; median stone size 12 mm). One hundred ninety-eight (88%), 21 (9.3%), and 6 (2.7%) patients underwent SWL, FURS, and PCNL as primary treatments, respectively, for median stone sizes of 12, 12, and 20 mm. Overall success rates were 82.8%, 76.1%, and 66.7%, respectively (p < 0.05). Sixty-three percent of patients undergoing primary SWL were effectively treated after one session. Anatomical analysis determined infundibulopelvic angle and infundibular length to be significantly different in patients effectively treated with SWL (p = 0.04). The average cost per treatment modality was also significantly lower for SWL (£750) than for FURS (£1261) or PCNL (£2658) (p < 0.01)., Conclusion: SWL is both an efficacious and cost-effective primary treatment for patients with solitary LP stones (10-20 mm). The majority of patients can be effectively treated with primary SWL in a dedicated stone center, with the benefits of a short length of stay, low complication, and auxiliary treatment rates. The referral of such patients to high-volume lithotripsy centers with demonstrable outcomes should be given due consideration.

Objective: To evaluate the outcome and the costs of stenting in uncomplicated semirigid ureteroscopic stone removal., Materials and Methods: A decision tree model was created to evaluate the economic impact of routine stenting versus non-stenting strategies in uncomplicated ureteroscopy (URS). Probabilities of complications were extracted from twelve randomized controlled trials. Stone removal costs, costs for complication management, and total costs were calculated using Treeage Pro (TreeAge Pro Healthcare version 2015, Software, Inc, Williamstown Massachusetts, USA)., Results: Stone removal costs were higher in stented URS (€1512.25 vs. €1681.21, respectively). Complication management costs were higher in non-stented procedures. Both for complications treated conservatively (€189.43 vs. €109.67) and surgically (€49.26 vs. €24.83). When stone removal costs, costs for stent removal, and costs for complication management were considered, uncomplicated URS with stent placement yielded an overall cost per patient of €1889.15 compared to €1750.94 without stent placement. The incremental costs of stented URS were €138.25 per procedure., Conclusion: Semirigid URS with stent placement leads to higher direct procedural costs. Costs for managing URS-related complications are higher in non-stented procedures. Overall, a standard strategy of deferring routine stenting uncomplicated ureteroscopic stone removal is more cost efficient.

Aim of the Study: To demonstrate how, in a center with a large number of patients, as our center is, it is possible to perform ureterolithotripsy using a limited set of instruments., Methods: We evaluated medical charts of our center related to semirigid ureteral ureteroscopy (URS) with ureterolithotripsy using Holmium laser performed from July 2004 to July 2011. Overall, 658 URS for ureteral stones were performed in 601 patients, of which 204 in proximal ureter (31%), 86 in the mid (13.06%) and 368 (57.76%) in the distal ureter. In 504 patients (76.5%) ureterohydronephrosis (Grade II-III) was observed. In 57 patients (8.6%), we performed a bilateral approach at the same time, but most patients had a solitary distal ureteral stone. 106 patients (16.1%) had more than one stone in their distal ureter and 96 (14.8%) had a proximal ureteral stone treated in the same surgery as well., Results: The overall stone-free rate for ureteral stones was 86.1% (567/658). Success rates for proximal, medial and distal ureteral stones were 68.13% (139/204 patients), 84.8% (73/86 patients) and 96.4% (355/368 patients), respectively. One hundred and twenty patients (18.3%) required additional surgical treatment for their stones beyond the initial URS, including a second URS in 97 patients (14.74%) and URS plus Retrograde Intra-Renal Surgery (RIRS) in 23 patients (3.54%). The overall stonefree rate after the second treatment was 99.3%. Intra-operative complications accounted for 5.92% and consisted of ureteral perforations in 16 pts (2.4%), erosions of urothelium leading to significant bleeding in 15 pts (2.27%), severe pain in 4 pts (0.6%), fever in 3 pts (0.45%) and one case of ureteral avulsion (0.15%)., Conclusions: This study demonstrates that the use of Holmium laser lithotripsy is a safe and effective means of treating ureteral stones regardless of sex, age, stone location, or stone size. The instrumentation we used was extremely limited, in order to reduce costs related to the procedure to an absolute minimum whilst maintaining the two quality indicators for the procedure, namely success rate and length of hospitalisation (86.1% and 34 hours).

Purpose: To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of shockwave lithotripsy (SWL) vs ureteroscopic lithotripsy (URS) for patients with renal stones <1.5 cm in diameter., Methods: Patient age, stone diameter, stone location, and stone-free status were recorded for patients treated with SWL or URS for renal stones <1.5 cm in maximal diameter over a 1-year period. Institutional charges were obtained from in-house billing. A decision analysis model was constructed to compare the cost-effectiveness of SWL and URS and using our results and success rates for modeling. Three separate models were created to reflect practice patterns for SWL., Results: One hundred fifty-eight patients were included in the study-78 underwent SWL and 80 underwent URS as primary treatment. Single procedure stone-free rates (SFR) for SWL and URS were 55% and 95%, respectively (P<0.0001). Decision analysis modeling demonstrated cost-effectiveness of SWL when SWL single procedure SFR were 65% to 67% or when URS single procedure SFR was 72% to 84%., Conclusions: This retrospective study revealed superior SFR results for renal stones <1.5 cm for URS compared with SWL. Our decision analysis model demonstrates that for SWL SFR less than 65% to 67% or for URS SFR greater than 72% to 84%, SWL is not a cost-effective treatment option. Based on these findings, careful stratification and selection of stone patients may enable surgeons to increase the cost-effectiveness of SWL.

The objective of this study was to audit the cost of flexible ureterorenoscopic lithotripsy. The data for 302 consecutive flexible ureteroscopic lithotripsy (FURSL) procedure undertaken in our department for renal stone treatment were collected retrospectively. The costs associated with performing FURSL, including the cost of ancillary equipment were analyzed. This includes the cost of the initial purchase of the ureterorenoscopes and the holmium laser equipment. The cost of flexible ureterorenoscopy for each lithotripsy procedure (for a total of 302 FURSL) was $118. Additional cost of ancillary equipment including laser device, ureteral access sheath and stone retrival catheter were $156, $231 and $611, respectively. In this series, the costs of the ancillary equipment including laser exceeded the purchase and maintenance of the flexible ureteroscope. The cost of disposables rather than flexible ureteroscope itself should be considered in planning the budget.

Purpose of Review: Stone migration during the treatment of ureteral stones can prove frustrating and increases both healthcare cost and patient morbidity. Antiretropulsion devices have been engineered to prevent stone migration., Recent Findings: Improvements in antiretropulsion devices allow for efficient prevention of stone migration during ureteroscopic lithotripsy with minimal adverse effects or complications. Multiple devices are now available each with advantages and disadvantages. New devices are currently engineered to prevent stone migration and maintain ureteral access. Antiretropulsion devices appear to be cost-effective to prevent stone migration during intracorporeal lithotripsy., Summary: Antiretropulsion devices have been safely and effectively used during ureteroscopic procedures. These tools increase stone-free rates, decrease morbidity and new studies have demonstrated their cost-effectiveness.

Purpose: We evaluated the cost-effectiveness of anti-retropulsion devices used during ureteroscopic lithotripsy., Materials and Methods: A decision analysis model was constructed to compare the cost-effectiveness of ureteroscopic lithotripsy with vs without an anti-retropulsion device. The risk of stone retropulsion was determined from published data in the English language literature. Expected value calculations were used to determine whether the additional cost of a device would be cost-effective to prevent secondary procedures used to treat retropulsed stones. Device cost was determined using the average cost of all commercially available devices., Results: It became cost-effective to use an anti-retropulsion device at or above a 6.3% retropulsion rate. The weighted probability of retropulsion with vs without an anti-retropulsion device was 98.1% vs 83.7%. The estimated costs of secondary procedures needed to treat retropulsed stones were $5,290 for shock wave lithotripsy and $6,390 for ureteroscopy. Average device cost was $278. Thus, the average additional cost of ureteroscopic lithotripsy with vs without an anti-migration device would be $384 vs $952., Conclusions: It is cost-effective to use an anti-retropulsion device at a retropulsion rate of greater than 6.3%., (Copyright © 2013 American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Purpose: We evaluated the cost-effectiveness of ureteral/renal stone treatment by comparing ureteroscopy, extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy and percutaneous nephrolithotomy., Materials and Methods: We performed a systematic literature search to identify studies of treatment for adults with ureteral and renal stones that were published between 1995 and 2010. For inclusion in analysis studies had to provide the stone-free rate and the cost of at least 2 therapies., Results: Ten studies were identified, including 8 with an observational design and 2 that synthesized data using decision modeling techniques. Five of 6 studies, including 1 of 2 from the United States, compared ureteroscopy vs shock wave lithotripsy for proximal stones and showed a higher stone-free rate and lower cost for ureteroscopy. Four of the 5 studies, including the only American study, compared ureteroscopy vs shock wave lithotripsy for distal ureteral stones and also showed such an economically dominant result. Studies of shock wave lithotripsy vs percutaneous nephrolithotomy and ureteroscopy vs percutaneous nephrolithotomy for renal stones demonstrated higher cost and a higher stone-free rate for percutaneous nephrolithotomy., Conclusions: Despite the great heterogeneity and limited quality of available cost-effectiveness evaluations most studies demonstrated that ureteroscopy was more favorable than shock wave lithotripsy for ureteral stones in stone-free rate and cost., (Copyright © 2012 American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Unlabelled: What's known on the subject? and What does the study add? Stone management economics is a complex issue. FURS and SWL are recognised treatment option for lower pole kidney stones. There are paucity of data comparing cost implication and effectiveness of both treatment options. Both treatment modalities are equally efficacious. FURS incurred greater cost burden compared to SWL in the UK setting. In the present economic circumstance, clinicians should also consider cost-impact, patient's preference and specific clinical indication when counselling patients for treatment., Objective: • To compare the cost-effectiveness and outcome efficiency of extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy (SWL) vs intracorporeal flexible ureteroscopic laser lithotripsy (FURS) for lower pole renal calculi ≤20 mm., Patients and Methods: • Patients who had treatment for their radio-opaque lower pole renal calculi were categorized into SWL and FURS group. • The primary outcomes compared were: clinical success, stone-free, retreatment and additional procedure rate, and perceived and actual costs. • Clinical success was defined as stone-free status or asymptomatic insignificant residual fragments <3 mm. • Perceived cost was defined as the cost of procedure alone, and the actual cost included the cost of additional procedures as well as the overhead costs to result in clinical success., Results: • The FURS (n= 37) and SWL (n= 51) group were comparable with respect to sex, age, stone size and the presence of ureteric stent. • The final treatment success rate (100% vs 100%), stone-free rate (64.9% vs 58.8%), retreatment rate (16.2% vs 21.6%) and auxillary procedure rate (21.6% vs 7.8%) did not differ significantly. • The mean perceived cost of each FURS and SWL procedure was similar (£249 vs £292, respectively); however, when all other costs were considered, the FURS group was significantly more costly (£2602 vs £426, P= 0.000; Mann-Whitney U-test)., Conclusion: • SWL was efficacious and cost-effective for the treatment of lower pole renal calculi ≤20 mm., (© 2011 THE AUTHORS. BJU INTERNATIONAL © 2011 BJU INTERNATIONAL.)

Extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy (ESWL) and ureteroscopy (URS) are two main methods of treating proximal ureteric stones. Success rates and cost-effectiveness of the two methods were compared. A total of 67 patients who underwent treatment between January 2007 and July 2007 at a state general hospital were included in the study. The success rate for ESWL group was 81.8% and for URS group was 84.6%. ESWL technique produced a significant higher overall cost per patient than URS (RM930.02 versus RM621.95 respectively). There was no significant difference in quality of patient's life. Cost-effectiveness ratio was lower for URS. The analysis suggested that URS was more cost-effective than ESWL.

Aim: To compare cost-effectiveness, success rates and sat isfaction score of ureteroscopic lithotripsy with lithoclast (URSL) and extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL) for ureteral stones in a Taipei City Hospital., Methods: This is a retrospective study. From July 1998 to June 2000, 448 patients who underwent treatment for ureteral stones were included. The patients were divided into two treatment groups according to the initial method adopted for the management of their stone. Medical records and hospital financial records were collected for costs of implementing each treatment program. The satisfaction scores of patients (rating from 0 to 10) were collected by telephone interviews. Success was defined as complete clearance of the stone or fragmentation of stones smaller than 2 mm by plain abdominal film and complete relief of symptoms after initial treatment., Results: A total of 360 patients were in the ESWL group (including 144 upper, 48 middle and 168 lower third stones) and 88 in the URSL group (including 28 upper, 24 middle and 36 lower third stones). The range of stone size was from 0.6 to 1.9 cm. The overall treatment cost was comparable in both groups with a trend for it to be higher in the ESWL group without reaching statistical significance (TWD 20,901.5 +/- 8,911.3 vs. 19,876.1 +/- 4,782.2). Stratified by the location of stone, the overall treatment cost was significantly higher in the ESWL group than in the URSL group for patients with upper third ureteral stones irrespective of stone size. The efficiency quotient for ESWL and URSL was 0.62 and 0.65, respectively. The success rate was significantly higher in the URSL group than in the ESWL group (89.8 vs. 71.7%). Satisfaction scores were similar for both groups with a trend to be higher in the ESWL group without reaching statistical significance (7.97 +/- 1.01 vs. 7.53 +/- 1.37)., Conclusions: The overall treatment cost of patients with upper third ureteral stone was significantly higher in the ESWL group than in the URSL group, but the success rate was significantly higher in the URSL group than in the ESWL group., (Copyright 2009 S. Karger AG, Basel.)

Objectives: To conduct a prospective and randomized trial to compare the efficiency quotient and cost-effectiveness index of shock wave lithotripsy (SWL) and ureteroscopic lithotripsy (URSL) for the treatment of large upper third ureteral stones., Methods: A total of 35 male patients and 7 female patients with a solitary, radiopaque upper ureteral stone, 15 mm or more in diameter, who underwent SWL or URSL were enrolled in this study. The mean patient age was 53.1 +/- 14.5 years. The endpoint of the study was for the patient to be stone free or to have insignificant residual stone (3 mm or less) within the kidney., Results: The mean stone length +/- SD was 17.9 +/- 3.9 cm in the SWL group and 18.5 +/- 2.9 cm in the URSL group (P > 0.05). The efficiency quotient for SWL and URSL was 0.61 and 0.63, respectively. The cost-effectiveness index, treatment time, pain score, and hospital stay were greater in the URSL group. However, the degree of hydronephrosis significantly influenced the success rate of SWL. All patients with severe hydronephrosis in the SWL group needed auxiliary surgical procedures to become stone free., Conclusions: The efficiency quotients of SWL and URSL were comparable in the treatment of large upper third ureteral stones. However, SWL should not be recommended as the first-line treatment option for the management of upper third ureteral stones larger than 1.5 cm with severe hydronephrosis. Understanding the cost-effectiveness, success rate, pain score, and patient satisfaction score for the two different approaches constitutes the indispensable requisites for choosing the optimal first-line therapeutic strategy.

Objectives: To compare the safety and cost-effectiveness of ureterorenoscopic holmium:yttrium-aluminum-garnet (YAG) laser lithotripsy (URSL) with extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL) for proximal ureteral stones., Methods: This investigation assessed 220 patients with upper ureteral stones. Those in the ESWL group were treated on an outpatient basis using the Medispec Econolith 2000 (Medispec, Germantown, MD) under intravenous sedation. URSL was performed with a 6/7.5F semirigid tapered ureterorenoscope and holmium:YAG laser under spinal anesthesia on an inpatient basis. A successful outcome was defined as the patient being stone free on radiography 1 month after treatment. The stone size, success rate, postoperative complications, and cost were evaluated in each group., Results: A total of 220 patients were enrolled in this study. Hematuria and flank pain were the most common complaints in each group. The mean stone burden +/- SD was 58.7 +/- 3.1 mm2 in the ESWL group and 108.4 +/- 10.0 mm2 in the URSL group (P = 0.000). The accessibility of the semirigid ureterorenoscope for upper ureteral stones was 98.1% (101 of 103), and the stone-free rate achieved after one treatment was 83.2% (84 of 101). The initial stone-free rate of in situ ESWL was 63.9% (76 of 119). Significantly, the initial stone-free rate of the URSL group was superior to that of the ESWL group (P = 0.001). The average cost in the URSL group appeared to be lower than that in the ESWL group (P = 0.000)., Conclusions: The results of this study have demonstrated that URSL achieved excellent results for upper ureter calculi. In terms of cost and effectiveness, this procedure should be the first-line therapy for proximal ureter stones.

More than 30 % of all admissions to an urologic clinic are for the treatment of urinary stones. In almost all cases, the treatment is minimally invasive employing extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL), ureterorenoscopy (URS) or percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL). Technical advances in endourology and a growing expertise in ESWL led to a decline in ESWL and an increase in endoscopic techniques. In comparison with ESWL, the endoscopic techniques are more invasive but in most cases achieve a stone free state faster. With the introduction of diagnosis related groups (DRG), the economic aspect of stone therapy is gaining in importance. Stone prevention leads to a cost reduction in the health care system, justifying the use of an appropriate stone metaphylaxis. This review article presents the current recommendations for interventional urinary stone therapy and lists the options of conducting both medical and economically rational therapy.

Objectives: To compare the success rates, cost effectiveness, and efficiency of ureteroscopy (URS) and extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL) for proximal ureteral stones., Methods: In a retrospective manner, 220 patients who underwent treatment for proximal ureteral stones were included in the study. The patient records, radiographs, and billing statements of all patients treated for upper ureteral stones between January 1997 and June 2001 at Scott and White Memorial Hospital were reviewed. The patients were placed into two treatment groups according to the method of their stone's initial treatment. The stones were categorized as less than 1 cm and 1 cm or greater., Results: A total of 111 patients were in the ESWL group, 73 of whom had stones less than 1 cm, and 109 patients in the URS group, 81 of whom had stones less than 1 cm. In the URS group, 91% were successfully treated with one treatment intervention, and 55% of the ESWL group were successfully treated with their initial intervention (P <0.0001). Of the patients with URS failure, all but one was treated successfully with a second URS. Of the patients with ESWL failure, 52% were treated successfully by subsequent URS. The remaining patients with ESWL failure were treated with repeat ESWL, with a 62% success rate. The efficiency quotient for stones less than 1 cm for URS and ESWL was 0.79 and 0.51, respectively. For stones 1 cm or greater, URS had an efficiency quotient of 0.72 and ESWL of 0.46. The URS group required fewer days to be stone free (8 versus 25.5 days, P <0.0001). No statistically significant difference was found in the overall complication rates (P = 0.43). URS had significantly lower charges for the initial procedure (7575 dollars versus 9507 dollars, P <0.0001). The total charges were also lower for URS (9378 dollars versus 15,583, dollars P <0.0001). Complications were similar in the two groups. The URS group had two ureteral strictures., Conclusions: The results of this study indicate that URS is more efficient and cost-effective for stones up to and larger than 1 cm with similar complication rates compared with ESWL.

Background: The optimal treatment for distal ureteral calculi remains controversial. We present data from our institution to compare the efficacy of extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy (SWL) and ureteroscopy with different lithotripsy modalities (URSL)., Methods: From January 1994 to September 1997, 954 distal ureteral calculi were treated at our institution using in situ SWL (Siemens Lithostar) in 524 patients and ureteroscopy (Wolf 8.0F instrument and Swiss Lithoclast) in 430 patients. Stone sizes and patient ages were similar in these two groups., Results: In the SWL group, the 3-month stone-free rate was 87%, and the effectiveness quotient (EQ) was 68.7%. In the URSL group, there was a 96% stone-free rate with an EQ of 92.1%. The SWL treatment was more expensive than URSL., Conclusion: At our institution, ureteroscopy is more efficacious than SWL for the treatment of distal ureteral calculi. In selected patients who had stones >10 mm with evidence of impaction and severe colic pain, we strongly suggest that URSL is the best choice.

Purpose: We prospectively compared plain film radiography and noncontrast, thin cut helical computerized tomography (CT) to flexible nephroscopy for detecting residual stones after percutaneous nephrostolithotomy., Materials and Methods: We prospectively evaluated 36 patients (41 renal units) undergoing percutaneous nephrostolithotomy for large (greater than 3 cm., 23 renal units) or staghorn (18 renal units) calculi. All patients underwent postoperative imaging with plain film of the kidneys, ureters and bladder and noncontrast helical CT, and flexible nephroscopy on postoperative day 2 or 3. The size and location of residual fragments determined radiographically and identified by flexible nephroscopy were compared., Results: Plain film radiography and CT detected an average of 0.7 and 3.4 stones per renal unit, respectively. With a mean operating time plus or minus standard deviation of 77.3+/-35 minutes and a mean fluoroscopy time of 7.6+/-6.7 minutes, an average of 2.3 stones per renal unit were retrieved at flexible nephroscopy. In 90.2% of renal units all calices could be directly inspected. The sensitivity and specificity were 46% and 82% for plain film radiography, and 100% and 62% for CT, respectively, using flexible nephroscopy as the gold standard for detecting residual stones. The overall stone-free rate after flexible nephroscopy was 92.6%. The cost of this procedure is $5,625.13 compared to $220 for CT, including the interpretation fee, at our institution., Conclusions: Selective use of flexible nephroscopy after percutaneous nephrostolithotomy based on positive CT findings will avoid an unnecessary operation in 20% of patients. The rate of unnecessary procedures is 32% if all patients undergo flexible nephroscopy, regardless of radiographic findings. At our institution this strategy will result in a cost savings of $109,687 per 100 patients.

Objectives: To determine the efficacy and costs of extracorporeal shock-wave lithotripsy (ESWL) compared with ureteroscopy (URS) in the treatment of mid- and lower ureteric calculi., Patients and Methods: The records of patients treated primarily by ESWL and URS were analysed retrospectively. Treatment with ESWL included 63 patients (42 men and 21 women, mean age 52 years, range 23-78, 19 mid- and 44 lower ureteric calculi). All patients received 4000 shock waves at a mean energy setting of 18.1 kV. URS was used in 105 patients, with a 7.2 F miniscope or the 7.1 F flexible scope. Stones were fragmented with a pulsed-dye laser lithotripter at 504 nm and a power of up to 130 mJ (mean 53 mJ) using a 200 or 320 microns fibre. All ureteroscopies were performed with the patient under general (n = 17) or spinal (n = 87) anaesthesia in a mean treatment duration of 34 min. Stones were located in the mid-ureter in 24 patients and in the lower ureter in 80. The outcome was assessed by stone-free rates, re-treatment rates, time to become stone-free, complication and costs., Results: ESWL for mid- and lower ureteric calculi resulted in a success rate of 90% and 81%, respectively, compared with 96% and 99% for URS. However, patients treated with URS were stone-free within 2 days, whereas patients in the ESWL group required up to 4 months. The best results for ESWL were achieved with stones of < 50 mm2. The costs of URS were higher than those for ESWL., Conclusions: ESWL provides a noninvasive, simple and safe option for the management of mid- and lower ureteric calculi, provided that the stones are < 50 mm2; larger stones are best treated by URS.

Forty-three patients with single ureteral calculi located above the pelvic brim were treated by electrohydraulic lithotripsy (EHL) using a semirigid mini-ureteroscope. Of the 43 calculi, 36 (84%) were fragmented in one procedure. Six calculi (14%) were pushed back to the renal pelvis and treated successfully by complementary extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy (SWL). The total success rate of ureteroscopic manipulation thus was 98%. The operation time (mean 26.4 minutes) and postoperative hospital stay (mean 2.53 days) were relatively short. Complications were limited to four (9%) minor perforations of the ureter managed by internal stenting. Among these patients with complications, there were no significant ureteral strictures noted on excretory urography or ureteroscopic examination 1 to 3 months after ureterolithotripsy. The costs of ureteroscopy with EHL are lower than that of SWL or ureteroscopic lasertripsy. The total fees for ureteroscopy with EHL are about two thirds those for SWL in Taiwan. Despite the longer learning curve required for ureteroscopy, ureteroscopy associated with EHL is a cost-effective alternative for the treatment of upper ureteral calculi, especially when SWL is not readily available.

Ureteroscopy (URS) and extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy (SWL) battle for supremacy in the management distal ureteral calculi. In order to clarify issues surrounding this controversy, we created a decision tree modeling URS or SWL with literature-based probabilities and used as endpoints both cost and patient preferences. Ureteroscopy was more successful than single-session or multiple-session SWL, 92.1% v 74.3% or 84.5%, and had a lower retreatment/complication rate. Although initial SWL was only slightly more expensive than URS, $4,420 v $4,337, the difference increased when the additional costs of complications and retreatment were calculated, $6,745 v $5,555. Using values for an "average" patient, SWL was preferred to URS in terms of patient satisfaction. The most important factors distinguishing between URS and SWL were the success of treatment, the cost of initial therapy, and patient attitudes toward unplanned ancillary procedures and retreatment. Although no alteration of success rates and cost figures within reasonable ranges made URS less cost-effective than SWL, individual differences in patients' aversion for complications allowed URS to be preferred to SWL in some situations. Therefore, SWL is less cost-effective than URS and is not necessarily preferred by patients. The physician should be aware of the principal determinants of the choice between URS and SWL treatment of distal ureteral calculi.

Objectives: To compare extracorporeal shock-wave lithotripsy (ESWL) with endoscopic lithotripsy to establish the more efficacious and cost-effective treatment for ureteral calculi., Methods: The records of 112 patients with primary ureteral calculi treated at one center with either ESWL or endoscopic lithotripsy were retrospectively reviewed. Follow-up data at 1 and 3 months were obtained in all patients. Success was defined as complete clearance of a stone burden in the endoscopy group. In the ESWL group patients with a residual, asymptomatic 2-mm fragment were also considered successful treatments. The number of auxiliary procedures, retreatments, postoperative office visits, and imaging studies required before a patient was considered stone free was defined. The impact of these variables on global costs was carefully reviewed., Results: Patients with ureteral calculi primarily treated with ESWL or ureteroscopic lithotripsy had stone-free rates after a single session of 45% versus 95% at 1-month follow-up, and 62% versus 97% at 3-month follow-up. Retreatment and auxiliary procedure rates were significantly higher in the ESWL group (31% versus 3%). The mean number of postoperative visits and imaging studies until a patient was stone free was also higher in the ESWL group (2.07 versus 1.13). Operative treatment costs were similar for both modalities, but overall costs weighed heavily against ESWL., Conclusions: ESWL remains the treatment of choice for moderately sized, uncomplicated renal calculi. In skilled hands, ureteroscopic lithotripsy is by far the most expeditious and cost-effective means of clearing a ureteral stone burden.