Laparoscopic ureterolithotomy; an equally effective and a sensible alternative to flexible ureterorenoscopy in the management of large ureteral stones in terms of effectivity and cost.

OBJECTIVES: We aimed to understand whether laparoscopic ureterolithotomy (LU) is a good alternative to flexible ureterorenoscopic lithotripsy (FURS) by comparing these techniques concerning cost-effectiveness. METHODS: We analysed 79 patients with upper ureteral stones larger than 1.5 cm underwent FURS or LU concerning cost-effectiveness analysis. The data including age, body mass index (BMI), stone size, operation time, hospitalisation time, complications and stone-free rates of 15th day and 3rd months. We audited the costs of FURS and LU and compared them concerning cost-effectiveness. RESULTS: There was not any statistically significant difference between the two groups with regard to age, BMI, stone size, stone-free rates at the 3rd month, and complication rates, (p>0.05). The operation times were statistically lower in the FURS than in the LU (61.5±24.3 min and 140.9±49.1 min, respectively, p<0.05). The stone-free rate at the 15th day was lower in the FURS group than in the LU group (31 (81.6%) and 41 (100%), respectively, p<0.05) (Table   I). However, this statistical difference disappears at 3 months (p>0.05). The mean costs of FURS and LU were $194.2±12.4 and $179.2±58.5, respectively (p<0.001). CONCLUSION: FURS is equally effective to LU in terms of stone-free rates. The cost of FURS is higher statistically than LU. FURS is shown as the first choice for the upper ureteral stones larger than 10 mm in size, if the laparoscopic experience is in high-level situations in that clinic, LU may be a suitable alternative to FURS, especially for challenging cases.

OBJETIVOS: El objetivo es determinar si la ureterolitectomia laparoscópica (UL) es una buena alternativa a la ureterorenoscopia flexible con litotricia (URSF) a través de la comparación de ambas técnicas en lo que a coste y efectividad radica.MÉTODOS: Analizamos 79 pacientes con litiasis ureterales proximales de más de 1,5 cm que recibieron URSF o UL en relación a coste-efectividad. Los datos recogidos incluyeron edad, IMC, tamaño de la litiasis, tiempo de la cirugía, tiempo de hospitalización, complicaciones y tasa libres de litiasis a los 15 días y 3 meses de la cirugía. Auditamos los costes de las URSF y UL y se compararon en relación a coste-efectividad. RESULTADOS: No hubo diferencias estadísticamente significativas entre los grupos en relación a la edad, IMC, tamaño de la litiasis, tasa libre de litiasis a los 3 meses y complicaciones (p>0,05). Los tiempos quirúrgicos fueron estadísticamente menores en URSF en comparación a UL (61,5±24,3 min y 140,9±49,1 min, respectivamente, (pz0,05). La tasa libre de litiasis a los 15 días fue mas baja en el grupo de URSF que UL (31 (81,6%) y 41 (100%), respectivamente, p <0,05](Tabla I).Aunque la diferencia estadística desaparece a los 3 meses (p>0,05). El coste medio de URSF y UL fue de $194,2 ± 12,4 y $ 179,2 ± 58,5, respectivamente (pCONCLUSIÓN: URSF es igualmente efectiva que UL en términos de tasa libre de litiasis. Los costes de URSF es más alto que UL. URSF es la primera opción en el tratamiento de litiasis de más de 1 cm en uréter proximal. En caso de experiencia laparoscópica de alto nivel, UL puede sustituir a URSF, especialmente en casos difíciles.

Open vs Laparoscopic Simple Prostatectomy: A Comparison of Initial Outcomes and Cost.

INTRODUCTION: We compared the cost-effectiveness of laparoscopic simple prostatectomy (LSP) vs open prostatectomy (OP). PATIENTS AND METHODS: A total of 73 men treated for benign prostatic hyperplasia were enrolled for OP and LSP in groups 1 and 2, respectively. The findings were recorded perioperative, including operation time (OT), blood lost, transfusion rate, conversion to the open surgery, and the complications according to the Clavien Classification. The postoperative findings, including catheterization and drainage time, the amount of analgesic used, hospitalization time, postoperative complications, international prostate symptom score (IPSS) and International Index of Erectile Function (IIEF) scores, the extracted prostate weight, the uroflowmeter, as well as postvoiding residual (PVR) and quality of life (QoL) score at the postoperative third month, were analyzed. The cost of both techniques was also compared statistically. RESULTS: No statistical differences were found in the preoperative parameters, including age, IPSS and QoL score, maximum flow rate (Qmax), PVR, IIEF score, and prostate volumes, as measured by transabdominal ultrasonography. No statistical differences were established in terms of the OT and the weight of the extracted prostate. No differences were established with regard to complications according to Clavien's classification in groups. However, the bleeding rate was significantly lower in group 2. The drainage, catheterization, and hospitalization times and the amount of analgesics were significantly lower in the second group. The postoperative third month findings were not different statistically. Only the Qmax values were significantly greater in group 2. While there was only a $52 difference between groups with regard to operation cost, this difference was significantly different. CONCLUSION: The use of LSP for the prostates over 80 g is more effective than the OP in terms of OT, bleeding amount, transfusion rates, catheterization time, drain removal time, hospitalization time, consumed analgesic amount, and Qmax values. On the other hand, the mean cost of the LSP is higher than OP. Better effectiveness comes with higher cost.