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.

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.

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.

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

OBJETIVO: Analizar de forma comparativa los costes indirectos y directos de dos técnicas mínimamente invasivas (litotricia extracorpórea (LEOC) vs. ureterorrenoscopia-láser holmium (URS/RIRS)) para el tratamiento de la litiasis reno-ureteral menor de 2 cm. MATERIAL Y MÉTODOS: Estudio prospectivo y comparativo, no aleatorizado de 84 pacientes tratados por litiasis reno-ureteral menor de 2 cm entre enero y diciembre de 2016. De estos, 38 (45,67%) se trataron con LEOC (18 litiasis renales y 20 litiasis ureterales) y 46 (54,32%) con URS/RIRS (22 litiasis renal y 24 litiasis ureteral). Un total de 19 (41,3%) pacientes estaban activos laboralmente en el grupo de URS/RIRS y 15 (39,5%) pacientes en el grupo de LEOC. Las variables analizadas fueron sexo, edad, número y tamaño de las litiasis, días de baja laboral debido al tratamiento, estimación del coste indirecto por la pérdida de productividad laboral y el coste directo del tratamiento aplicado incluyendo el seguimiento (número total de procedimientos, procedimientos auxiliares, visitas y pruebas diagnósticas). Para la estimación del coste indirecto se empleó la Encuesta de Estructura Salarial 2015 (INE). Además, también se utilizó el cuestionario «Work Productivity and Activity Impairment» (WPAI) para determinar el grado de percepción de pérdida de productividad. RESULTADOS: El número medio de sesiones hasta la resolución de la litiasis fue de 2,57 para el grupo de LEOC y de 1,04 para la URS. El promedio de días de baja laboral en el grupo de la URS fue de 7,16 días, mientras que en el caso de la LEOC fue de 3,18 (p = 0,034). Los costes indirectos totales derivados de la pérdida de productividad fueron de 621,55 € y de 276,05 € para la URS y LEOC, respectivamente. Los costes directos en el grupo de la LEOC fueron de 1.382,9 € y 2.317,71 € en el grupo de la URS. El grado de afectación en el trabajo percibido por los pacientes sometidos a URS fue del 18,88% y del 21,33% en el grupo de LEOC. El grado de afectación para realizar actividades cotidianas fue del 24,44% en URS y del 15% en LEOC. CONCLUSIONES: La LEOC es una técnica que precisa de un mayor número medio de sesiones para la resolución de la litiasis reno-ureteral menor de 2 cm, pero con una menor repercusión en los costes totales y en la percepción del grado de afectación

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

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 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.

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.

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.

Pneumatic versus laser ureteroscopic lithotripsy: a comparison of initial outcomes and cost.

PURPOSE: To audit the cost of laser versus pneumatic semirigid ureteroscopic lithotripsy and to analyze their relative initial outcomes and cost. METHODS: Hundred and eighty-seven patients who underwent semirigid ureteroscopic lithotripsy were analyzed retrospectively in terms of age and sex of the patients; location and size of the stones; the type of probe and ancillary equipment such as guide wire, basket catheter, JJ stent requirements; irrigation amount; operation time; the cost of the anesthesia and further treatments such as a JJ stent removal operation and shock wave lithotripsy requirements and their costs. Two groups were formed based on this type of lithotripters, pneumatic and laser lithotripsy. RESULTS: Operation times (min.) in terms of the stone size, for stones <100 and >100 mm(2) were 20.75 ± 10.78 and 25.82 ± 14.23, respectively (p = 0.007). Operation times for the pneumatic and laser groups were 33.05 ± 11.36 and 15.25 ± 6.14, respectively (p < 0.05).The stone-free rates for pneumatic and laser groups were 89.6 % (n = 69) and 98.2 % (n = 108), respectively (p = 0.01). The mean cost of the operations for each of the study groups was 261.5 ± 66.13 and 311.7 ± 51.97 US$, respectively (p = 0.001). The mean cost in terms of the stone size, for stones <100 and >100 mm(2), was 272.86 ± 53.05 and 323.71 ± 66.88 US$, respectively (p = 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: It seems that usage of laser lithotripsy (LL) in patients with ureteral stones is more effective than pneumatic lithotripsy (PL) in terms of operation time and SF rate. On the other hand, the mean cost of LL seems to be more expensive than PL. Urologists should think these parameters before the choice of these two treatment modalities. The higher the effectiveness, the greater the cost.

Use of drug therapy in the management of symptomatic ureteric stones in hospitalized adults (SUSPEND), a multicentre, placebo-controlled, randomized trial of a calcium-channel blocker (nifedipine) and an α-blocker (tamsulosin): study protocol for a randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Urinary stone disease is common, with an estimated prevalence among the general population of 2% to 3%. Ureteric stones can cause severe pain and have a significant impact on quality of life, accounting for over 15,000 hospital admissions in England annually. Uncomplicated cases of smaller stones in the lower ureter are traditionally treated expectantly. Those who fail standard care or develop complications undergo active treatment, such as extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy or ureteroscopy with stone retrieval. Such interventions are expensive, require urological expertise and carry a risk of complications.Growing understanding of ureteric function and pathophysiology has led to the hypothesis that drugs causing relaxation of ureteric smooth muscle, such as the selective α-blocker tamsulosin and the calcium-channel blocker nifedipine, can enhance the spontaneous passage of ureteric stones. The use of drugs in augmenting stone passage, reducing the morbidity and costs associated with ureteric stone disease, is promising. However, the majority of clinical trials conducted to date have been small, poor to moderate quality and lacking in comprehensive economic evaluation.This trial aims to determine the clinical and cost-effectiveness of tamsulosin and nifedipine in the management of symptomatic urinary stones. METHODS/DESIGN: The SUSPEND (Spontaneous Urinary Stone Passage ENabled by Drugs) trial is a multicentre, double-blind, randomized controlled trial evaluating two medical expulsive therapy strategies (nifedipine or tamsulosin) versus placebo.Patients aged 18 to 65 with a ureteric stone confirmed by non-contrast computed tomography of the kidney, ureter and bladder will be randomized to receive nifedipine, tamsulosin or placebo (400 participants per arm) for a maximum of 28 days. The primary clinical outcome is spontaneous passage of ureteric stones at 4 weeks (defined as no further intervention required to facilitate stone passage). The primary economic outcome is a reduction in the incremental cost per quality-adjusted life years, determined at 12 weeks. The analysis will be based on all participants as randomized (intention to treat). The trial has 90% power with a type I error rate of 5% to detect a 10% increase in primary outcome between the tamsulosin and nifedipine treatment groups. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN69423238; EudraCT number: 2010-019469-26.

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.

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.

[Medical and Economic Aspects of Extracorporeal Shock Wave Lithotripsy]. / Aktuelle medizinische und ökonomische Aspekteder extrakorporalen Stoßwellenlithotripsie.

Extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL) is the method of choice for most renal and ureteral calculi. However, endoscopic procedures such as ureteroscopy or percutaneous nephrolithotomy are being more and more performed as primary treatment alternatives in clinical routine. This development may result from the sometimes unsatisfying results of ESWL. While this is often explained by a lower efficacy of last-generation machines, an often unrecognized explanation is the impact of a less well trained urologist. To achieve best results it is mandatory that fundamental knowledge about shock wave physics and disintegration mechanisms are available. In Germany, the reimbursement system between outpatient and inpatient departments is totally separate. This leads to difficulties in clinical practice. We believe that patients at risk for complications, such as ureteral stones, urinary tract infections or high age, benefit from inpatient treatment, while uncomplicated renal stones can safely be treated on an outpatient basis. Regular application and training of ESWL will aid an optimization of its results and acceptance.

Preoperative stent placement decreases cost of ureteroscopy.

OBJECTIVES: To examine the effect of preoperative stent placement on total cost of ureteroscopic stone intervention. Passive ureteral dilation with a preoperative ureteral stent has been proposed as a method to facilitate both upper tract access and stone removal. METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed the records of patients who underwent ureteroscopic stone intervention at our institution from 2005 to 2009. A sample of patients who had undergone stenting before ureteroscopy was selected and nonstented matched controls were used as a comparison group. A cost model was used to compare the total healthcare costs for the prestented and nonstented patients with a large (>1 cm) and small (≤1 cm) stone burden using the actual cost accrued for each patient. Sensitivity analyses were used to examine the robustness of the cost model. RESULTS: A total of 104 patients were included in the present study (45 prestented, 59 not prestented). The median stone size was 1 cm (range 0.3-4). The overall stone clearance rate was 95.8%. The median number of procedures was 1. Pre-stenting significantly decreased the total healthcare cost in patients with stones >1 cm. The median cost for the prestented and nonstented cohorts was $17,706 and $27,806, respectively (P < .01). However, prestenting increased the total cost for smaller stones of ≤1 cm, although not significantly. The median cost for the prestented and nonstented cohorts was $10,872 and $12,344, respectively (P = .70). Sensitivity analysis confirmed that the model conclusions are robust. CONCLUSIONS: Preoperative stent placement is cost-effective for successful ureteroscopic treatment of stones >1 cm.

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.

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 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.

Renal stone disease in Christchurch, New Zealand. Part 2: a community study on the burden of renal stone disease.

AIM: To quantify the annual burden of a 12-month cohort of newly diagnosed renal stones in the defined community of Christchurch, New Zealand, and to assess this burden by stone size and position. METHOD: In this prospective study of stone burden, patients in the Christchurch region of New Zealand with newly diagnosed renal stones maintained a weekly diary for a 12-month period to record the utilisation of health services and financial and social costs to families and partners. Patient records were matched with diagnostic and clinical information to provide a comprehensive database. The economic costs of the various services were estimated. RESULTS: From November 2001 to November 2002, 422 newly diagnosed renal stones were detected--an annual incidence of 105 per 100,000 population. The annual mean cost of these stones was NZ$4274 per person in the first 12 months. The greatest costs were those for emergency visits, hospitalisations and for operative procedures (23.8%, 22.7%, and 21.8% of total financial burden respectively). Patient workdays lost accounted for 10.9% of total costs. Ureteric stones caused greater social burden than kidney stones. Costs were influenced by stone location and size, being significantly higher for ureteric stones and for larger stones. CONCLUSIONS: Renal stone disease places a considerable burden on the community. The main burdens were related to health service costs, with personal and pharmaceutical costs representing only a small component. The financial burden to society is estimated at $450,000 per 100,000 population ($NZ in 2001/02).

Outcomes of flexible ureteroscopic lithotripsy with holmium laser for upper urinary tract calculi.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the perioperative and financial outcomes of flexible ureteroscopic lithotripsy with holmium laser for upper tract calculi in 44 patients. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Between February 2004 and September 2006, 44 patients treated for upper tract stone with flexible ureteroscopic lithotripsy were evaluated. Renal stones were associated with collecting system obstruction in 15 (34%) patients, failed extracorporeal shock-wave lithotripsy (SWL) occurred in 14 (32%) patients, unilateral multiple stones in 18 (41%) patients, and multiple bilateral stones in 3 (7%). In 29 (66%) patients, the stone was located in the inferior calyx. Perioperative and financial outcomes were also evaluated. RESULTS: 50 procedures were performed in 44 patients. The mean stone burden on preoperative CT scan was 11.5 +/- 5.8 mm. The mean operative time was 61.3 +/- 29.4 min. The stone free rate was 93.1% after one procedure and 97.7% after a second procedure, with overall complication rate of 8%. Therapeutic success occurred in 92% and 93% of patients with lower pole stones and SWL failure, respectively. Treatment failure of a single session was associated with presence of a stone size larger than 15 mm (p = 0.007), but not associated with inferior calyx location (p = 0.09). Surgical disposables were responsible for 78% of overall costs. CONCLUSION: Flexible ureteroscopy using holmium laser is a safe and effective option for the treatment of upper urinary tract calculi. In addition, it can be considered an attractive option as salvage therapy after SWL failure or kidney calculi associated with ureteral stones. Stone size larger than 15 mm is associated with single session treatment failure.