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.

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.

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

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.

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.

Assessing Cost-Effectiveness of New Technologies in Stone Management.

Diagnosis, treatment, and follow-up are all influential in determining the overall cost to the health care system for kidney stones. New innovations in the field of nephrolithiasis have been abundant, including disposable ureteroscopes, ultrasound-guided approaches to percutaneous nephrolithotomy, and advanced laser lithotripters. Identifying cost-effective treatment strategies encourages practitioners to be thoughtful about providing value-based high-quality care and remains on important principle in the treatment of urinary stone disease.

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of the Management of Distal Ureteral Stones in Children.

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

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.

Comparison between Endoscopic Treatment and Surgical Drainage of the Pancreatic Duct in Chronic Pancreatitis.

BACKGROUND: Treatment of recurrent chronic obstructive pancreatitis is pancreatic duct decompression with endoscopic drainage (endoscopic pancreatic stenting [EPS] with extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy [ESWL]) or surgical drainage. Despite the recent popularization of endoscopic drainage, treatment or stent removal is difficult in many patients. We compared the efficacy, safety, and medical cost of endoscopic and surgical treatments. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We retrospectively compared the treatment course and medical cost of hospitalization between 41 patients who had undergone pancreatic stenting between 2006 and 2010 (EPS group) and 10 patients who had undergone surgery for poor control of pancreatitis between 2001 and 2005 (surgical drainage group). RESULTS: No intergroup differences were observed in causes, symptoms, disease duration, smoking history, or endocrine and exocrine functions. The technical success rate was 100% in both groups, and pain had improved in all of the patients in both groups. The incidences of complications did not differ significantly, and the mortality rate was 0% in both groups. The rehospitalization rate was significantly higher in the EPS group (78%) than that in the surgical drainage group (20%; P<0.01). This was considered attributable to rehospitalization for stent replacement. The effects to improve endocrine and exocrine functions were not different between the two groups before and after treatment, and the current condition was maintained in 80% or more of the patients. For the entire EPS group, the mean hospitalization period was 18 days and the mean medical cost of hospitalization was 2,133,330 yen. For the entire surgical drainage group, the mean hospitalization period was 23 days and the mean medical cost of hospitalization was 2,246,548 yen, thus indicating no significant differences between the two groups. CONCLUSIONS: Although both endoscopic and surgical treatments achieved high symptom control and safety rates, re-hospitalization is required for stent replacement, which leads to poor cost-effectiveness, particularly in patients in whom stent removal is difficult. Endoscopic treatment for severe pancreatic duct stenosis will need to be advanced and evaluated in the future.

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.

TISU: Extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy, as first treatment option, compared with direct progression to ureteroscopic treatment, for ureteric stones: study protocol for a randomised controlled trial.

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

Endoscopic versus surgical drainage treatment of calcific chronic pancreatitis.

BACKGROUND: Endoscopic therapy and surgery are both conventional treatments to remove pancreatic duct stones that developed during the natural course of chronic pancreatitis. However, few studies comparing the effect and safety between surgery drainage and endoscopic drainage (plus Extracorporeal Shock Wave Lithotripsy, ESWL).The aim of this study was to compare the benefits between endoscopic and surgical drainage of the pancreatic duct for patients with calcified chronic pancreatitis. METHODS: A total of 86 patients were classified into endoscopic/ESWL (n = 40) or surgical (n = 46) treatment groups. The medical records of these patients were retrospectively analyzed. RESULTS: Pain recurrence and hospital stays were similar between the endoscopic/ESWL treatment and surgery group. However, endoscopic/ESWL treatment yielded significantly lower medical expense and less complications compared with the surgical treatment. CONCLUSIONS: In selective patients, endoscopic/ESWL treatment could achieve comparable efficacy to the surgical treatment. With lower medical expense and less complications, endoscopic/ESWL treatment would be much preferred to be the initial treatment of choice for patients with calcified chronic pancreatitis.

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.

Burden of Urolithiasis: Trends in Prevalence, Treatments, and Costs.

CONTEXT: The recent evolution of management options for urolithiasis has presented a unique dilemma for the modern urologist. A comprehensive understanding of epidemiological trends along with current provider preferences in treating urinary stones would be beneficial. OBJECTIVE: To review trends in the prevalence, treatments, and costs of urolithiasis worldwide. EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: A literature review was performed using the MEDLINE database, the Cochrane Library Central search facility, Web of Science, and Google Scholar between 1986 and 2016. Keywords used for the search were "urolithiasis" and "prevalence; treatment; and cost". EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS: The incidence and prevalence of urinary stones are rising around the world, including regions that have historically had low rates of urolithiasis. Common theories explaining this trend involve climate warming, dietary changes, and obesity. Shockwave lithotripsy (SWL) has been the preferred mode of treatment since its introduction in the 1980s. However, ureteroscopy (URS) has become increasingly popular for small stones regardless of location because of lower recurrence rates and costs. Developing countries have been slower to adopt URS technology and continue to use percutaneous nephrolithotomy at a steady rate. CONCLUSIONS: URS has recently challenged SWL as the treatment modality preferred for small upper urinary tract stones. In some cases it is less expensive but still highly effective. As the burden of stone disease increases worldwide, appropriate selection of stone removal therapies will continue to play an important role and will thus require further investigation. PATIENT SUMMARY: Urinary stones are becoming more prevalent. Recent advances in technology have improved the management of this disease and have decreased costs.

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).

Primary SWL Is an Efficient and Cost-Effective Treatment for Lower Pole Renal Stones Between 10 and 20 mm in Size: A Large Single Center Study.

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

A cost analysis of stenting in uncomplicated semirigid ureteroscopic stone removal.

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