Cost analysis of ureteroscopy (URS) vs extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy (ESWL) in the management of ureteric stones <10 mm in adults: a UK perspective.

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.

Variation in Spending around Surgical Episodes of Urinary Stone Disease: Findings from Michigan.

PURPOSE: To help rein in surgical spending there is growing interest in the application of payment bundles to common outpatient procedures like ureteroscopy and shock wave lithotripsy. However, before urologists can move to such a payment system they need to know where episode costs are concentrated. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Using claims data from Michigan Value Collaborative we identified patients who underwent ureteroscopy or shock wave lithotripsy at hospitals in Michigan from 2012 to 2015. We then totaled expenditures for all relevant services during the 30-day surgical episodes of these patients and categorized component payments (ie those for the index procedure, subsequent hospitalizations, professional services and postacute care). Finally we quantified the variation in total episode expenditures for ureteroscopy and shock wave lithotripsy across hospitals, examining drivers of this variation. RESULTS: A total of 9,449 ureteroscopy and 6,446 shock wave lithotripsy procedures were performed at 62 hospitals. Among these hospitals there was threefold variation in ureteroscopy and shock wave lithotripsy spending. The index procedure accounted for the largest payment difference between high vs low cost hospitals (ureteroscopy $7,936 vs $4,995 and shock wave lithotripsy $4,832 vs $3,207, each p <0.01), followed by payments for postacute care (ureteroscopy $2,207 vs $1,711 and shock wave lithotripsy $2,138 vs $1,104, each p <0.01). Across hospitals the index procedure explained 68% and 44% of the variation in episode spending for ureteroscopy and shock wave lithotripsy, and postacute care payments explained 15% and 28%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: There exists substantial variation in ambulatory surgical spending across Michigan hospitals for urinary stone episodes. Most of this variation can be explained by payment differences for the index procedure and for postacute care services.

Ureteroscopy is more cost effective than shock wave lithotripsy for stone treatment: systematic review and meta-analysis.

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.

Complete endoscopic sphincterotomy with vs. without large-balloon dilation for the removal of large bile duct stones: randomized multicenter study.

Background and study aims Endoscopic sphincterotomy plus large-balloon dilation (ES-LBD) has been reported as an alternative to endoscopic sphincterotomy for the removal of bile duct stones. This multicenter study compared complete endoscopic sphincterotomy with vs. without large-balloon dilation for the removal of large bile duct stones. This is the first randomized multicenter study to evaluate these procedures in patients with exclusively large common bile duct (CBD) stones. Methods Between 2010 and 2015, 150 patients with one or more common bile duct stones ≥ 13 mm were randomized to two groups: 73 without balloon dilation (conventional group), 77 with balloon dilation (ES-LBD group). Mechanical lithotripsy was subsequently performed only if the stones were too large for removal through the papilla. Endoscopic sphincterotomy was complete in both groups. Patients could switch to ES-LBD if the conventional procedure failed. Results There was no between-group difference in number and size of stones. CBD stone clearance was achieved in 74.0 % of patients in the conventional group and 96.1 % of patients in the ES-LBD group (P < 0.001). Mechanical lithotripsy was needed significantly more often in the conventional group (35.6 % vs. 3.9 %; P < 0.001). There was no difference in terms of morbidity (9.3 % in the conventional group vs. 8.1 % in the ES-LBD group; P = 0.82). The cost and procedure time were not significantly different between the groups overall, but became significantly higher for patients in the conventional group who underwent mechanical lithotripsy. The conventional procedure failed in 19 patients, 15 of whom underwent a rescue ES-LBD procedure that successfully cleared all stones. Conclusions Complete endoscopic sphincterotomy with large-balloon dilation for the removal of large CBD stones has similar safety but superior efficiency to conventional treatment, and should be considered as the first-line step in the treatment of large bile duct stones and in rescue treatment.Trial registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT02592811).

Cost-effectiveness comparison of ureteral calculi treated with ureteroscopic laser lithotripsy versus shockwave lithotripsy.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of shockwave lithotripsy (SWL) versus ureteroscopic lithotripsy (URS) for patients with ureteral stones less than 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 ureteral stones under 1.5 cm 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 using our results and success rates for modeling. Three separate models were created to reflect differing practice patterns. RESULTS: A total of 113 patients were included-51 underwent SWL and 62 underwent URS as primary treatment. Single procedure stone-free rates for SWL and URS were 47.1 and 88.7 %, respectively (p < 0.002). Decision analysis modeling demonstrated cost-effectiveness of SWL when SWL single procedure stone-free rates (SFR) were greater than or equal to 60-64 % or when URS single procedure SFRs were less than or equal to 57-76 %, depending on practice patterns. CONCLUSIONS: This retrospective study revealed superior SFR for ureteral stones less than 1.5 cm treated with URS compared to SWL. Our decision analysis model demonstrated that when SFR for SWL is less than 60-64 % or is greater than 57-76 % for URS, 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 economics of stone disease.

The rising prevalence of kidney stone disease is associated with significant costs to healthcare systems worldwide. This is in part due to direct procedural and medical management costs, as well as indirect costs to health systems, patients, and families. A number of manuscripts evaulating the economics of stone disease have been published since the 2008s International Consultation on Stone Disease. These highlight costs associated with stone disease, including acute management, surgical management, and medical management. This work hopes to highlight optimization in care by reducing inefficient treatments and maximizing cost-efficient preventative strategies.

Who "apparently" more spends, "in reality" spends less. Spending "a little" more for the rental of the extracorporeal lithotripter can save "a lot" about the days of hospitalization for urinary stones.

OBJECTIVE: The right to health (according to the Article 32 of the Italian Republic Constitution) is financially conditioned; for this reason the National Health System (NHS) has the objective of rationalize health expenditure according to the criteria of efficiency, effectiveness and economy. This paper is an example of rationalization concerning the extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Hospital admissions for urinary stones were taken into account. "Edotto", the database of the Puglia region has identified 23 inpatient admissions during which was performed ESWL. A single operator performed ESWLs with a Storz lithotripter, Modulith SLK. RESULTS: The average hospital stay is conditioned by days "to wait" lithotripsy. In 2014 the hospitalization days "waiting for" lithotripsy were 100. The results were subjected to SWOT analysis and discussed with the Boston Consulting Group Matrix. DISCUSSION: Constant availability of the lithotripter would spare 100 days of hospitalization, amounting to € 88,200.00. This waste of resources corresponds to an additional cost equal to 98.3% on the cost for the rental of the lithotripter. Instead, reducing "unnecessary" hospitalization days would get a saving of 79.3% on the rental cost. It is as if for 46 days of the lithotripter rent were paid 46 days, while for 365 days of the lithotripter rent were paid only 11.8 sessions per year. CONCLUSIONS: Rationalization of resources is not necessarily a synonym of "reduction" of resources, but of reduction of waste in the NHS. A good plan is the most important rational basis to get more resources. About the process taken into account it is seen as an investment of € 21,450.00 would keep unchanged the effectiveness of lithotripsy service but would add efficiency and economy (increase of sessions/year, increase in the active mobility, increase in orthopedic treatments) and would drastically reduce the number hospital days (a waste).

Comparison of extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy running models between outsourcing cooperation and rental cooperation conducted in Taiwan.

BACKGROUND/PURPOSE: We conducted a retrospective study to compare the cost and effectiveness between two different running models for extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (SWL), including the outsourcing cooperation model (OC) and the rental cooperation model (RC). METHODS: Between January 1999 and December 2005, we implemented OC for the SWL, and from January 2006 to October 2011, RC was utilized. With OC, the cooperative company provided a machine and shared a variable payment with the hospital, according to treatment sessions. With RC, the cooperative company provided a machine and received a fixed rent from the hospital. We calculated the cost of each treatment session, and evaluated the break-even point to estimate the lowest number of treatment sessions to make the balance between revenue and cost every month. Effectiveness parameters, including the stone-free rate, the retreatment rate, the rate of additional procedures and complications, were evaluated. RESULTS: Compared with OC there were significantly less treatment sessions for RC every month (42.6±7.8 vs. 36.8±6.5, p=0.01). The cost of each treatment session was significantly higher for OC than for RC (751.6±20.0 USD vs. 684.7±16.7 USD, p=0.01). The break-even point for the hospital was 27.5 treatment sessions/month for OC, when the hospital obtained 40% of the payment, and it could be reduced if the hospital got a greater percentage. The break-even point for the hospital was 27.3 treatment sessions/month for RC. No significant differences were noticed for the stone-free rate, the retreatment rate, the rate of additional procedures and complications. CONCLUSION: Our study revealed that RC had a lower cost for every treatment session, and fewer treatment sessions of SWL/month than OC. The study might provide a managerial implication for healthcare organization managers, when they face a situation of high price equipment investment.

Antiretropulsion devices.

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.

Cost-effectiveness of anti-retropulsion devices for ureteroscopic lithotripsy.

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%.

Economic outcomes of treatment for ureteral and renal stones: a systematic literature review.

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.

Value of focal applied energy quotient in treatment of ureteral lithiasis with shock waves.

The treatment of ureteral lithiasis by extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL) is progressively being abandoned owing to advances in endoscopic lithotripsy. The purpose of this paper is to analyze the causes as to why ESWL is less effective-with a measurable parameter: focal applied energy quotient (FAEQ) that allows us to apply an improvement project in ESWL results for ureteral lithiasis. A prospective observational cohort study with 3-year follow-up and enrollment period was done with three groups of cases. In Group A, 83 cases of ureteral lithiasis were treated by endoscopic lithotripsy using Holmiun:YAG laser. In Group B, 81 cases of ureteral lithiasis were treated by ESWL using Doli-S device (EMSE 220F-XXP). In Group C, 65 cases of ureteral lithiasis were treated by ESWL using Doli-S device (EMSE 220F-XXP) (FAEQ >10). Statistical study and calculation of RR, NNT, Chi-square test, Fisher's exact test, and Student's t test were done. Efficiency quotient (EQ) and focal applied energy quotient [FAEQ = (radioscopy seconds/number of shock waves) × ESWL session J] were analyzed. From the results, the success rate of the treatment using Holmium:YAG laser lithotripsy and ESWL is found to be 94 and 48%, respectively, with a statistically significant difference (p < 0.001). Success rate of endoscopic laser lithotripsy for lumbar ureteral stones was 82% versus 57% of ESWL (p = 0.611). In Group B, FAEQ was 8.12. In Group C, success rate was 93.84% with FAEQ of 10.64%. When we compare results from endoscopic lithotripsy with Holmium:YAG laser in Group B with results from ESWL with FAEQ >10, we do not observe absolute benefit choosing one or the other. In conclusion, the application of ESWL with FAEQ >10, that is, improving radiologic focalization of the calculus and increasing the number of Joules/SW, makes possible a treatment as safe and equally efficient as Holmium:YAG laser lithotripsy in ureteral lithiasis less than 13 mm.

Cost-effectiveness and efficiency of shockwave lithotripsy vs flexible ureteroscopic holmium:yttrium-aluminium-garnet laser lithotripsy in the treatment of lower pole renal calculi.

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.

Cost-effectiveness of Retrograde Intrarenal Surgery, Standard and Mini Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy, and Shock Wave Lithotripsy for the Management of 1-2cm Renal Stones.

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.

Improved cost-effectiveness and efficiency with a slower shockwave delivery rate.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the benefits of a slower shockwave (SW) delivery rate of 70 shocks/min on the treatment efficiency and cost-effectiveness of extracorporeal SW lithotripsy (ESWL). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients who had ESWL for their upper urinary tract radio-opaque calculi were categorized into two groups: slow (70 SW/min) and fast (100 SW/min) delivery rate. All treatment was carried out using a lithotripter (Model S, Dornier MedTech, Wessling, Germany) as an outpatient procedure with no anaesthesia or sedation. The groups were followed for > or =6 months. The primary outcomes compared were the stone-free rate, re-treatment rate, additional procedure rate, perceived cost and actual cost. Clinical success was defined as stone-free status or asymptomatic insignificant residual fragments of <3 mm. Perceived cost was defined as the cost of ESWL alone, and actual cost included the cost of additional procedures and overhead costs to result in clinical success. RESULTS: In all, the study included 102 patients, categorized into the fast (51) and slow (51) rate groups. The groups were comparable in terms of sex, age, body mass index, stone size and stone location. The slow group had a significantly better stone-free rate (67% vs 25.5%, P = 0.002, chi-square), fewer mean shocks to clinical success (3045 vs 4414, P < 0.001, U-test), lower re-treatment rate (22% vs 45%P = 0.013, chi -square), a lower additional procedure rate (12% vs 29%, P = 0.02, chi-square), greater efficiency quotient (0.51 vs 0.16) than the fast group. The mean perceived cost of ESWL (GB pound 297 vs 394 pounds, P = 0.013, U-test) and the mean actual cost of the slow group were significantly less (496 pounds vs 1002 pounds, P = 0.001, U-test). CONCLUSION: Slowing the SW delivery rate to 70/min significantly reduced the actual cost by half and improved treatment efficiency.

Analysis of the efficacy of holmium laser and pneumatic ballistic in the treatment of impacted ureteral calculi.

To explore the safety and effectiveness of ureteroscopic holmium laser lithotripsy (UHLL) and ureteroscopic pneumatic lithotripsy (UPL) in the treatment of impacted ureteral calculi (IUC).Clinical data of 280 patients in our hospital from April 2016 to May 2019 were retrospectively collected and analyzed, including 136 cases of UHLL group and 144 cases of UPL group. The general clinical data, operation time, intraoperative bleeding volume, hospital stay, stone-free rate (SFR), and surgical complications were collected and analyzed in 2 group.Compared with UPL group, the operation time of UHLL group was significantly reduced (27.25 ±â€Š8.39 vs 34.32 ±â€Š10.57, P < .05), but the hospitalization cost was significantly increased (9.25 ±â€Š0.75 vs 8.24 ±â€Š0.51, P < .05). In terms of total SFR, the UHLL group was significantly higher than the UPL group (93.38% vs 83.33%, P = .011). For proximal IUC, compared with the UPL group, the SFR of the UHLL group was significantly increased (88.33% vs 70.31%, P = 0.005). For distal IUC, there was no significant difference in SFR (97.37% vs 93.75%, P = .638) between the UHLL group and UPL group. There were no significant differences in the complications of local mucosal injury, hematuria, febrile urinary tract infection, ureteral perforation, and urinary sepsis in the 2 groups (P > .05). However, the UHLL group was significantly lower in stone residual rate than the UPL group (6.61% vs 16.67%, P = .001).This study found that UHLL and UPL are safe and effective in the treatment of IUC, but UHLL has the advantages of shorter operation time and high SFR in the treatment of IUC.

The clinical and cost effectiveness of surgical interventions for stones in the lower pole of the kidney: the percutaneous nephrolithotomy, flexible ureterorenoscopy and extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy for lower pole kidney stones randomised controlled trial (PUrE RCT) protocol.

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.

Comparative analysis of direct and indirect costs of two minimally invasive techniques for the treatment of renal/ureteral calculi smaller than 2 cm. / Análisis comparativo de costes directos e indirectos de dos técnicas mínimamente invasivas, para el tratamiento de la litiasis renoureteral menor de 2 cm.

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 Impairment¼ (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.