Comparing extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy and ureteroscopy laser lithotripsy for treatment of urinary stones smaller than 2 cm: a cost-utility analysis in the Spanish clinical setting.

PURPOSE: To analyze the efficiency and cost-utility profile of ureteroscopy versus shock wave lithotripsy for treatment of reno-ureteral stones smaller than 2 cm. METHODS: Patients treated for urinary stones smaller than 2 cm were included in this study (n = 750) and divided into two groups based on technique of treatment. To assess the cost-utility profile a sample of 48 patients (50% of each group) was evaluated. Quality of life survey (Euroqol 5QD-3L) before-after treatment was applied, Markov model was designed to calculate quality of life in each status of the patients (stone or stone-free with and without double-J stent) and to estimate the incremental cost-utility. Monte carlo simulation was conducted for a probabilistic sensitivity analysis. Chi-square was used for comparing qualitative variables and T student's for continuous variables. RESULTS: Shock wave lithotripsy group had 408 (54.4%) and ureteroscopy group had 342 (45.6%) patients. Of them, 56.3% were treated for renal stones and 43.7% for ureteral stones. Ureteroscopy produced slightly higher overall quality of patients' life, but produced a significant higher overall cost per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) than shock wave lithotripsy, exceeding the cost-utility threshold (20,000€/QALY). Sensitivity analysis confirmed results in 93.65% of cases. Difference was maintained in subgroup analysis (ureteral vs renal stones). CONCLUSIONS: Results suggest that in our clinical setting shock wave lithotripsy has better cost-utility profile than ureteroscopy for treatment of reno-ureteral stones less than 2 cm, but excluding waiting times, in ideal clinical setting, ureteroscopy would have better cost-utility profile than shock wave lithotripsy.

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.

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.

Exploring the economic landscape of ureteric stones: impact of age and gender on direct healthcare costs.

OBJECTIVES: To assess whether age or gender affects ureteric stone management costs, in patients presenting to the Emergency Department (ED) with CT proven ureteric stones. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A retrospective examination was conducted on patients admitted to the ED who were diagnosed with a ureteric stone through CT scans. Data encompassing clinical, laboratory, and imaging parameters were gathered, alongside information on admissions, ED readmissions, surgical procedures, and the overall treatment cost. Comparative analyses were performed on various cost rates in relation to different stone parameters, patient clinical presentations, laboratory results, and personal histories of urolithiasis. RESULTS: From January 2018 to January 2020, 805 patients underwent abdominal CT scans at a single institution's ED and were diagnosed with ureteric stones. Among them, 773 patients met the inclusion criteria, with 78% (609) being males and 22% (169) females. The mean ages for males and females were 49.4 (SD 14.4) and 51.6 (SD 15.7), respectively (p = 0.08). Treatment costs exhibited a direct relationship with age, amounting to 4,025, 5,116, 6,058, and 9,225 US dollars (USD) in the 18-30, 31-50, 51-70, and over 70 age groups, respectively. Female gender was associated with higher treatment costs, averaging 6,831 USD, compared to 5,450 USD in males (p = 0.03). However, there were no significant differences between genders in terms of the type of surgical procedure (p = 0.4) or hospital stay duration (p = 0.1). CONCLUSIONS: Age and gender exerted a significant impact on treatment costs, revealing that advanced age and female gender were both correlated with higher direct treatment costs in the care of ureteric stones.

How much is a kidney worth? Cost-effectiveness of routine imaging after ureteroscopy to prevent silent obstruction.

PURPOSE: The 2012 American Urological Association (AUA) Clinical Effectiveness Protocols for Imaging in the Management of Ureteral Calculous Disease recommends routine postoperative imaging after ureteroscopy. We evaluated the cost-effectiveness of routine postoperative imaging after ureteroscopy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We searched the literature to determine the risk of complications after routine ureteroscopy for stones, including the incidence of postoperative pain, stricture and silent obstruction. Sequelae of renal loss due to undiagnosed silent obstruction may include chronic kidney disease, end stage renal disease and cardiovascular disease. Imaging and procedure costs were obtained from Medicare reimbursement rates and the literature. The costs and prevalence of lifetime complications associated with silent loss of 1 kidney were obtained from the renal donor transplant literature. A decision tree was constructed to calculate the cost of a strategy of routinely imaging all patients after ureteroscopy vs selective imaging based on postoperative pain. We performed 1-way and 2-way sensitivity analyses. RESULTS: The average cost per patient of a strategy of routine imaging after ureteroscopy in all patients was $5,326 vs $5,196 for a strategy of selective imaging based on postoperative pain. Assuming a 2% rate of silent obstruction, the cost per kidney saved would be $6,262. CONCLUSIONS: While routine postoperative imaging carries a $130 per patient incrementally higher cost over that of a strategy of selective imaging in patients with postoperative pain, preventing renal loss and its attendant morbidity justifies the additional modest cost.

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.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of ureteroscopic laser lithotripsy and shock wave lithotripsy in the management of ureteral calculi in eastern China.

INTRODUCTION: It was the aim of this study to compare the efficiency and safety between shock wave lithotripsy (SWL) and ureteroscopic holmium laser lithotripsy (URL) methods for ureteral calculi while also determining which option is more cost-effective. PATIENTS AND METHODS: During January 2008 to September 2009, a prospective randomized study was conducted to compare both modalities for the management of solitary radiopaque ureteral stones. Patient and stone characteristics, treatment outcome and charges were documented. Both options were compared using univariate statistical tests to identify the efficiency quotient and cost-effectiveness for ureteral calculi according to the stone location. RESULTS: A total of 257 patients were in the SWL group, while 269 were in the URL group. The efficiency quotients for SWL and URL were 0.81 and 0.88, respectively. The initial stone-free rate of URL for lower ureteral calculi was higher (p = 0.002), while the complication rate of SWL for upper ureteral calculi was lower (p = 0.027). The SWL group required lower hospitalization charges (USD 440 vs. 1,221; p < 0.001), lower total charges (USD 454 vs. 1,284; p < 0.001) and a shorter period of hospitalization (5.4 vs. 6.6 days; p < 0.001) compared with the URL group for all ureteral locations. For mid and lower ureteral calculi, the postoperative office visits of the URL group were fewer (1.03 vs. 1.1 times; p = 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Primary in situ SWL for upper and middle ureteral calculi showed lower complication rates compared to URL and was more cost-effective in Eastern China. However, primary URL was a better option for treating lower ureteral stones with a higher stone-free rate but was more expensive.

Determining Variable Costs in the Acute Urolithiasis Cycle of Care Through Time-Driven Activity-Based Costing.

OBJECTIVE: To characterize full cycle of care costs for managing an acute ureteral stone using time-driven activity-based costing. METHODS: We defined all phases of care for patients presenting with an acute ureteral stone and built an overarching process map. Maps for sub-processes were constructed through interviews with providers and direct observation of clinical spaces. This facilitated calculation of cost per minute for all aspects of care delivery, which were multiplied by associated process times. These were added to consumable costs to determine cost for each specific step and later aggregated to determine total cost for each sub-process. We compared costs of eight common clinical pathways for acute stone management, defining total cycle of care cost as the sum of all sub-processes that comprised each pathway. RESULTS: Cost per sub-process included $920 for emergency department (ED) care, $1665 for operative stent placement, $2368 for percutaneous nephrostomy tube placement, $106 for urology clinic consultation, $238 for preoperative center visit, $4057 for ureteroscopy with laser lithotripsy (URS), $2923 for extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy, $169 for clinic stent removal, $197 for abdominal x-ray, and $166 for ultrasound. The lowest cost pathway ($1388) was for medical expulsive therapy, whereas the most expensive pathway ($8002) entailed a repeat ED visit prompting temporizing stent placement and interval URS. CONCLUSION: We found a high degree of cost variation between care pathways common to management of acute ureteral stone episodes. Reliable cost accounting data and an understanding of variability in clinical pathway costs can inform value-based care redesign as payors move away from pure fee-for-service reimbursement.

Medical expulsive therapy for ureteral calculi in the real world: targeted education increases use and improves patient outcome.

PURPOSE: In controlled trials medical expulsive therapy has improved outcomes in patients with ureteral stones but its real-world use and effectiveness outside a clinical trial have not been thoroughly examined. We studied the impact of targeted education of emergency department physicians about medical expulsive therapy and analyzed its impact on patient outcomes and cost. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In 2006 emergency department physicians at our institution were formally educated about medical expulsive therapy. Retrospective emergency department data were collected on patients with ureteral stones from 2003 and 2005 (before educational intervention), and 2007 (after intervention). Cost and 90-day post-emergency department event data were gathered from a health maintenance organization owned and operated by our medical center. Medical expulsive therapy prescribing trends, adverse outcome (repeat emergency department visit, hospital admission or surgery) and total cost related to ureteral calculus diagnosis were analyzed. RESULTS: Of 166 health maintenance organization patients with ureteral calculi who met all study requirements 97 (58.4%) were prescribed medical expulsive therapy and 53 (31.9%) filled the medical expulsive therapy prescription, while 113 did not. Analysis revealed a 2-fold increase in medical expulsive therapy prescribing and a 4-fold increase in prescribing alpha-blockers in each time increment. Bivariate analysis showed that the frequency of adverse outcomes was lower in the medical expulsive therapy group (37.7% vs 53.1%) and medical expulsive therapy was associated with a lower mean total cost per patient ($1,805 vs $2,372). CONCLUSIONS: Targeted educational intervention can increase the use of preferred medical expulsive therapy (alpha-blockers) in the emergency department. Medical expulsive therapy decreases the incidence of adverse events by 29% and decreases the total cost associated with ureteral stones by 24%.

Cost-effectiveness of Medical Expulsive Therapy with ?-blockers for Large Distal Ureteral Stones in China.

PURPOSE: To assess the cost-effectiveness of medical expulsive therapy (MET) versus observation for large distal ureteral stones in China and provide preliminary evidence for the determination of the course of MET by mathematical estimation. MATERIALS AND METHODS: With linear success rate assumptions, a decision tree was constructed by TreeAge Pro 2011 software. The stones passage rates after observation or receiving 0.4 mg daily tamsulosin were estimated according to a large randomized clinical trial (RCT). The costs of ureteroscopy, drugs and examinations were estimated according to related price from pharmacies or hospitals, or the guidance price published by the government. MET was also compared with observation by the sensitivity analysis. The effectiveness of MET or observation was presented by quality-adjusted life-day. Mathematical estimation of stone expulsion time was made by using a decision-analytic Markov model under the assumption that the daily stone expulsion probability is constant. RESULTS: In China, the MET was associated with a $295.1 cost advantage over observation. The cost of ureteroscopy has to decrease to $77.8 to reach cost equivalence between observation and MET. Observation is cost-effective only if ureteroscopy is very cheap or the difference of stone expulsion rates is insignificant. The estimated expulsion time was much longer than those reported in above mentioned RCT. CONCLUSION: Due to the high cost of ureteroscopy, MET showed a cost advantage over observation in treating distal ureteral stones in China. The daily stone passage rate was inconstant. More studies are needed to find the appropriate duration of MET.

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.

Cost-effectiveness of treating ureteral stones in a Taipei City Hospital: shock wave lithotripsy versus ureteroscopy plus lithoclast.

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.

Factors Associated with Regional Adoption of Ureteroscopy in California from 2005 to 2016.

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.

[Economic aspects of evidence-based metaphylaxis]. / Okonomische Aspekte der evidenzbasierten Harnsteinmetaphylaxe.

The calculation model which we developed for the cost of stone therapy and metaphylaxis in Germany some years ago with a social health insurance company is based on estimates of stone incidence, types and recurrence rates, actual costs for stone removal, and metaphylaxis (based on data from a district of the social health care system). There are 200,000 stone recurrences per year in Germany. Costs for treatment of these stones amount to $687,000,000. Stone metaphylaxis reduces the recurrence rate by some 40%. The annual cost for stone removal could be lowered by $275,300,000. Metabolic evaluation/metaphylaxis amount to $70,100,000 per year, resulting in a net saving of $205,200,000. In 1997, there were 96 days off work per stone patient resulting in 5,800,000 days off work in Germany per year. Metaphylaxis is not only medically effective in stone formers but also can lower health care cost significantly. Although health care conditions may vary from country to country, in principle this calculation model is applicable also to other countries.

[Current aspects of stone therapy]. / Aktuelle Aspekte der Steintherapie.

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.

[Tamsulosin in the treatment of patients with ureteroliths of the lower third of the ureter clinical and pharmacoeconomic grounds].

Alpha1-adrenoblocker tamsulosin reduces muscle spasm in the ureteric wall, decreases peristalsis below and raises pressure above the stone thus facilitating stone passage. Patients on tamsulosin had spontaneous stone passage in 73.8% cases while only 22.4% patients on routine therapy became stone free. Tamsulosin also shortens hospital stay. Use of tamsulosin 0.4 mg daily in patients with distal ureteric stones is pathogenetically validated, is highly clinically and cost effective.

Factitious renal colic.

OBJECTIVES: We reviewed our experience with patients with factitious disorders who presented with renal colic to identify their common characteristics and to quantify the cost burden placed on the health care system as a result. METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed the medical records of two Philadelphia area hospitals from 1989 to 1995 to find patients with factitious disorders who presented with renal colic. A control group of patients with nephroureterolithiasis was also identified. RESULTS: We identified 12 patients who presented with renal colic and had a final diagnosis of Munchausen's syndrome or malingering. The incidence of factitious renal colic was 0.6%. Eighty-three percent of these 12 patients were men, had an average age of 32 years, and made a total of 18 hospital visits. Ninety-two percent claimed an intravenous contrast allergy, 25% claimed an allergy to a specific narcotic, and 39% of the hospital visits ended with the patient voluntarily discharged against medical advice. Thirty-three percent were treated elsewhere for similar complaints. Only the number of intravenous contrast allergies and the number of patients leaving against medical advice were statistically different from the control group. The total cost for all factitious visits was $52,452, with a mean cost per visit of $2914. The average bill of those patients who received retrograde pyelograms was $3046 greater than for those who did not. CONCLUSIONS: Factitious disorders should be considered when evaluating patients with an intravenous contrast allergy and renal colic. These patients are likely to leave against medical advice and place a significant cost burden on hospitals.

Endoscopy vs. extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy in the treatment of distal ureteral stones: ten years' experience.

BACKGROUND: The lower third is the location of the great majority of ureteral stones. Treatment of these stones remains controversial: in situ extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy (SWL) vs. ureteroscopy (URS). METHODS: During the last decade, 633 distal ureteral calculi were treated at our institution using in situ SWL (Siemens Lithostar electromagnetic lithotripter) in 395 patients and URS (with 11.5F instrument and ultrasonic lithotripsy) in 228 patients. The patients' age and stone size were similar in the two groups. All SWL therapies were performed on an outpatient basis. RESULTS: The overall success rate was 99% for SWL, and the efficiency quotient (EQ) was 92.4%. The treatment was more effective for <10 mm calculi. In the URS group, there was a 92% overall success rate with an EQ at 91.2%. Compared with SWL, URS was more time consuming, at least for the initial cases; often required intravenous sedation; entailed routine placement of a ureteral stent; and more often led to hospitalization. On the other hand, stone clearance was rapid after URS, although most of the SWL patients were stone free at the end of 6 weeks. The cost was similar in the two groups. CONCLUSION: We believe that multiple factors should be considered when deciding the most appropriate approach to distal ureteral calculi. In situ SWL provides optimal first-line treatment for calculi < 10 mm, whereas URS is better reserved for stones >10 mm.

[Native spiral computerized tomography in patients with acute flank pain--sense or nonsense?]. / Nativ-Spiral-Computertomographie bei Patienten mit akutem Flankenschmerz--Sinn oder Unsinn?

PURPOSE: To compare the diagnostic efficacy and costs of native spiral-CT and intravenous urography (IVU) in the management of patients with acute flank pain. METHOD: Native spiral-CT and IVU (following about 30 minutes after CT) were compared in 66 patients with acute flank pain followed by an IVU. The spiral-CT protocol was: 5-mm section thickness, 7.5-mm table feed and 3-mm increment. The analysis conducted independently by two radiologists entailed: (a) Morphology: presence of stone disease (yes-no), localization and size of calculi, periureteral and perirenal stranding, dilatation of the collecting system, and possible alternative diagnoses and (b) cost-effectiveness: direct and indirect costs. RESULTS: Fifty-two patients had urolithiasis. The detection rate of renal and ureteric calculi was significantly higher with native spiral-CT than with IVU (100% vs. 69%, respectively) (p < 0.05). A specific sign of ureteric calculi was the so-called soft tissue "rim sign" (sensitivity 82% and specificity 100%, respectively). In 13 of 14 patients with acute flank pain with no evidence of urolithiasis alternative diagnoses could be made by spiral-CT. Spiral-CT was significantly more cost-effective than IVU in management. CONCLUSION: Native spiral-CT is faster, more effective and less expensive than IVU in the management of patients with acute flank pain. Additionally, it poses less risk and has the capability for allowing alternative diagnoses. Therefore, unenhanced spiral-CT should be the first line modality in patients with acute flank pain.

[The frequency-doubled double-pulse Neodym:YAG laser lithotripter (FREDDY) in lithotripsy of urinary stones. First clinical experience]. / Der frequenzverdoppelte Doppelpuls-Neodym:YAG-Laser (FREDDY) bei Urolithiasis. Erste klinische Erfahrungen.

Laser lithotripsy does not play an important role in urinary stone treatment, mostly due to ineffective fragmentation efficiency, and high purchase and maintenance costs. The aim of the following retrospective study was to show the clinical significance and efficiency of an innovative laser lithotripsy system for urinary stone treatment. Between November 1998 and October 1999, 48 patients were treated with the innovative frequency- doubled double-pulse Neodym: YAG laser lithotripter FREDDY. A total of 50 renal units were treated, 43 ureteroscopically, four ureterorenoscopically, three percutaneous-nephroscopically, and one bladder stone cystoscopically. With a median laser operation time of 5 min (range: 1-30 min) and a total procedure duration of 60 min (range: 15-180 min), a stone-free rate of upper ureteral stones of 62%, middle ureteral stones of 91% and distal ureteral stones of 100% were documented on the first day after treatment. In an observation period of 6 months, no complications were seen. In our experience Laser lithotripsy with FREDDY is an effective, simple and reliable method for the treatment of ureteral stones, with low purchase and maintenance costs. The extremely thin and highly flexible quartz fibre may extend the endoscopic spectrum to otherwise poorly accessible upper ureteral stones, the renal pelvis and renal calix stones. Therefore, a prospective validation study for comparison with ballistic lithotriptors is of great interest.