Cost-effectiveness of anti-retropulsive devices varies according to the locations of proximal ureteral stones: a retrospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Anti-retropulsive devices are often used to prevent stone migration in the treatment of proximal ureteral calculi. They are helpful. However, in the meantime, they also add extra expenses. This study was carried out to investigate the best criteria for treating proximal ureteral stones with anti-retropulsive devices. METHODS: Data from all patients who underwent ureteroscopic holmium: YAG laser lithotripsy for solitary upper ureteral stones in 2018 were collected. Patients who encountered stone retropulsion during the process of inserting the ureteroscope were excluded. Patients were divided into either group URS or group URS + ARD depending on whether the anti-retropulsive device was used. Then, the stone-free rate, expenses and other criteria were compared between groups according to stone location. Stone-free was defined as no stones present. RESULTS: For stones located ≤ 30 mm from the ureteropelvic junction (UPJ), the stone-free rates for the URS group were 80% and 80% at one day and one month after the operation, respectively. Those for the URS + ARD group were 71.4% and 78.6% at one day and one month, respectively. For stones located 31-90 mm from the UPJ, the stone-free rates were 84.7% and 84.7% for the URS group and 89.6% and 95.5% for the URS + ARD group at one day and one month, respectively. A statistically significant difference occurred at one month. For stones located > 90 mm from the UPJ, the two groups were both stone free. In the URS + ARD group, expenses were higher. In addition, the mean diameter of residual stones derived from stones located at 31-90 mm from the UPJ was statistically smaller, and 4 of 7 residual stones passed spontaneously within one month, which was obviously more than that in other locations and the URS group. Other outcomes, including operation time and postoperative stay, showed no significant difference between the groups. CONCLUSION: Anti-retropulsive devices are indeed helpful, but they might be cost-effective for stones located solely in the middle part of the upper ureter, not for those too close to or far from the ureteropelvic junction.

The Moses holmium system - time is money.

INTRODUCTION: The Moses technology of the holmium laser has been shown to decrease retropulsion in the ureter and procedural time in kidney stones during laser lithotripsy. Theoretically, these improvements could lead to cost savings for the patient. MATERIALS AND METHODS: All patients with total laser energy data recorded who underwent ureteroscopy with laser lithotripsy by a single surgeon at a tertiary care center were included. Total lasing time was calculated from the total laser energy. Sub-analyses were done on stone size and stone composition. The procedure time using Moses technology was projected to be approximately 35% less than procedure time without the Moses technology based on prior in vitro studies. The projected cost savings was then utilized to predict cost-effectiveness of the Moses technology. RESULTS: Forty patients underwent ureteroscopy with laser lithotripsy. Mean stones size was 10.2 mm and mean lasing time was 3.02 minutes. Linear regression showed a positive association between stone size and laser time, p = 0.01. There was no significant correlation between stone composition or stone Hounsfield units and lasing time. On cost analyses, for stones of all sizes the Moses system has a price differential of an increase in $292.36 when compared to the standard Holmium TracTip system. Specifically for stones larger than 10 mm, the price differential is an increase in $253.16 for the Moses technology. CONCLUSION: The decrease in lasing time achieved by the Moses system does not translate into sufficient cost savings to off-set the higher cost of the laser fiber and software.

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

PURPOSE: To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of shockwave lithotripsy (SWL) versus ureteroscopic lithotripsy (URS) for patients with ureteral stones less than 1.5 cm in diameter. METHODS: Patient age, stone diameter, stone location, and stone-free status were recorded for patients treated with SWL or URS for ureteral stones under 1.5 cm over a 1 year period. Institutional charges were obtained from in-house billing. A decision analysis model was constructed to compare the cost-effectiveness of SWL and URS using our results and success rates for modeling. Three separate models were created to reflect differing practice patterns. RESULTS: A total of 113 patients were included-51 underwent SWL and 62 underwent URS as primary treatment. Single procedure stone-free rates for SWL and URS were 47.1 and 88.7 %, respectively (p < 0.002). Decision analysis modeling demonstrated cost-effectiveness of SWL when SWL single procedure stone-free rates (SFR) were greater than or equal to 60-64 % or when URS single procedure SFRs were less than or equal to 57-76 %, depending on practice patterns. CONCLUSIONS: This retrospective study revealed superior SFR for ureteral stones less than 1.5 cm treated with URS compared to SWL. Our decision analysis model demonstrated that when SFR for SWL is less than 60-64 % or is greater than 57-76 % for URS, SWL is not a cost-effective treatment option. Based on these findings, careful stratification and selection of stone patients may enable surgeons to increase the cost-effectiveness of SWL.

Comparison of efficacy of laser lithotripter with ultrasonic lithotripter in mini percutaneous nephrolithotomy.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of the study was to compare the efficacy of the laser lithotripter with the ultrasonic lithotripter in mini percutaneous nephrolithotomy (miniperc). MATERIAL AND METHODS: From June 2013 to January 2014; medical records of 77 consecutive patients who underwent miniperc operation were retrospectively evaluated. Ultrasonic lithotripter was used in 22 patients (Group 1), while laser was used in 55 patients. In the laser group, 22 patients were randomly selected who had same characteristics compared to group 1 (Group 2). Success rate, total operative time, complications according to modified Clavien classification, fluoroscopy time, haemoglobin drop, hospital stays and cost analysis were assessed. Success rates were evaluated on the second postoperative day and after the first month. RESULTS: Total operative time (p = 0.635) and fluoroscopy time (p = 0.248) were not significantly different between the two groups. In the laser group, the success rate (81.8%) was notably more than in the ultrasonic lithotripter group (68.2%) but there was no statistically significance (p = 0.296). Ten reusable ultrasonic probe were used for 22 patients, due to thinness and sensitiveness of the probe. Conversely, one single laser fiber (550 micron) was used for 22 patients. When the cost analysis of lithotripsy was considered, the cost per case was 190 dollar in group 1 and 124 dollar in group 2. (p = 0.154) Complication rate, hospital stay and haemoglobin drop were similar in both groups. CONCLUSION: Laser lithotripsy seems to be more cost effective than ultrasonic lithotripsy for miniperc but larger number of patients are required to confirm this estimation.

Simultaneous ureteroscopic lithotripsy and contralateral percutaneous nephrolithotomy for ureteral calculi combined with renal staghorn calculi.

OBJECTIVES: To investigate the efficacy, safety, and cost-effectiveness of simultaneous ureteroscopic lithotripsy and contralateral percutaneous nephrolithotomy for ureteral calculi combined with contralateral renal staghorn calculi. METHODS: The present prospective controlled trial had been registered with the Chinese Clinical Trial Registry (Registration number: ChiCTR-ONRC-13004146). Patients with ureteral calculi and contralateral renal staghorn calculi were enrolled into the staged (ureteroscopic lithotripsy first followed by a staged percutaneous nephrolithotomy) or the simultaneous (synchronous ureteroscopic lithotripsy and contralateral percutaneous nephrolithotomy) treatment group according to the odd or even number of the last hospitalization number. All patients signed informed consent. The primary outcomes were the stone-free rate and total hospital costs. The second outcomes were the operative and anesthesia times, the complication rate, and hospital stay. RESULTS: A total of 51 patients were enrolled into the staged group and 52 patients were enrolled into the simultaneous group. There were no statistically significant differences in patients' characteristics. The overall stone-free rate was 94.1% in the staged group and 92.3% in the simultaneous group. No severe complication was observed. The total hospital stay of the staged group was longer, and it was negatively correlated to different procedures. The cost in the staged group was higher, and it was correlated with total operation time and postoperative hospital stay. CONCLUSIONS: Simultaneous ureteroscopic lithotripsy and contralateral percutaneous nephrolithotomy represent safe and effective procedures, and they can be considered as a first-line treatment for selected patients presenting with ureteral calculi combined with contralateral renal calculi.

Durability of reusable holmium:YAG laser fibers: a multicenter study.

PURPOSE: Single use and reusable variants of holmium:YAG laser fibers are available to treat calculi during ureteroscopic procedures. In this prospective, multicenter study we evaluated a series of reusable holmium:YAG laser optical fibers. We hypothesized that reusable fibers provide a cost advantage over single use variants. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We prospectively recorded fiber data, including type, size, number of uses, laser pulse energy and frequency, and total energy delivered. All fibers were new and purchased off the shelf by staff at each institution. We performed a cost analysis comparing reusable fibers to single use variants. RESULTS: During 541 procedures a total of 37 holmium:YAG optical laser fibers were used, including 21 Laser Peripherals 270 (Laser Peripherals, Golden Valley, Minnesota), 7 Laser Peripherals 365, 4 Lumenis SlimLine™ 200 and 3 Lumenis SlimLine 365 fibers. After stratifying by core size 365 µm core fibers had significantly more uses than 270 µm core fibers (average 23.5 vs 11.3, p < 0.02). By fiber type the mean ± SE number of uses was 12.8 ± 2.44, 3 ± 0.4, 21.3 ± 7.12 and 28.7 ± 6.69 for the Laser Peripheral 270, Lumenis SlimLine 200, Laser Peripherals 365 and Lumenis SlimLine 365, respectively. The total cost savings for reusable fibers vs single use variants was $64,125. CONCLUSIONS: Reusable holmium:YAG optical laser fibers are a more cost-effective option than single use variants. Fibers with a 365 µm core provide more uses than smaller 270 µm variants.

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

UNLABELLED: What's known on the subject? and What does the study add? Stone management economics is a complex issue. FURS and SWL are recognised treatment option for lower pole kidney stones. There are paucity of data comparing cost implication and effectiveness of both treatment options. Both treatment modalities are equally efficacious. FURS incurred greater cost burden compared to SWL in the UK setting. In the present economic circumstance, clinicians should also consider cost-impact, patient's preference and specific clinical indication when counselling patients for treatment. OBJECTIVE: • To compare the cost-effectiveness and outcome efficiency of extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy (SWL) vs intracorporeal flexible ureteroscopic laser lithotripsy (FURS) for lower pole renal calculi ≤20 mm. PATIENTS AND METHODS: • Patients who had treatment for their radio-opaque lower pole renal calculi were categorized into SWL and FURS group. • The primary outcomes compared were: clinical success, stone-free, retreatment and additional procedure rate, and perceived and actual costs. • Clinical success was defined as stone-free status or asymptomatic insignificant residual fragments <3 mm. • Perceived cost was defined as the cost of procedure alone, and the actual cost included the cost of additional procedures as well as the overhead costs to result in clinical success. RESULTS: • The FURS (n= 37) and SWL (n= 51) group were comparable with respect to sex, age, stone size and the presence of ureteric stent. • The final treatment success rate (100% vs 100%), stone-free rate (64.9% vs 58.8%), retreatment rate (16.2% vs 21.6%) and auxillary procedure rate (21.6% vs 7.8%) did not differ significantly. • The mean perceived cost of each FURS and SWL procedure was similar (£249 vs £292, respectively); however, when all other costs were considered, the FURS group was significantly more costly (£2602 vs £426, P= 0.000; Mann-Whitney U-test). CONCLUSION: • SWL was efficacious and cost-effective for the treatment of lower pole renal calculi ≤20 mm.

Cost-effectiveness 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.

Percutaneous nephrostolithotomy versus flexible ureteroscopy/holmium laser lithotripsy: cost and outcome analysis.

PURPOSE: While percutaneous nephrostolithotomy is the standard of care for renal stones greater than 2 cm, recent studies have shown that staged ureteroscopy/holmium laser lithotripsy may be a reasonable option. Stones 2 to 3 cm may be amenable to ureteroscopy as well as to 1-stage treatment based on their intermediate size. We compared clinical outcomes and the estimated cost of percutaneous nephrostolithotomy vs ureteroscopy for 2 to 3 cm renal stones. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We retrospectively identified patients who underwent percutaneous nephrostolithotomy and ureteroscopy at our institution from 2004 to 2008 with a maximal renal stone diameter of 2 to 3 cm. Demographic information, disease characteristics, intraoperative and postoperative data, and complications were recorded. Stone clearance was reported as a residual stone burden of 0 to 2 mm and less than 4 mm. Cost was estimated using local Medicare reimbursements for surgeon, anesthesia, hospital and outpatient services. RESULTS: A total of 20 patients underwent percutaneous nephrostolithotomy and 19 underwent ureteroscopy for 2 to 3 cm renal stones. The estimated cost of percutaneous nephrostolithotomy was significantly greater than that of ureteroscopy ($19,845 vs $6,675, p <0.0001). There were significantly more second stage procedures among percutaneous nephrostolithotomy cases (11 vs 1, p = 0.003). Stone clearance (0 to 2 mm) was superior for percutaneous nephrostolithotomy vs ureteroscopy (89% vs 47%, p = 0.01). Using a less than 4 mm threshold stone clearance improved to 100% vs 95% (p not significant). Two patients (10.5%) with ureteroscopy required subsequent ipsilateral stone surgery. They were noncompliant with medical/dietary therapy or radiographic surveillance. CONCLUSIONS: While percutaneous nephrostolithotomy achieves superior stone clearance, ureteroscopy achieves acceptable treatment outcomes with a low risk of subsequent stone related events or interventions. The lower relative cost of ureteroscopy in this population may have implications for the development of treatment guidelines.

Comparison of laser lithotripsy and cystotomy for the management of dogs with urolithiasis.

OBJECTIVE: To compare efficacy, required resources, and perioperative complications between laser lithotripsy and cystotomy for urolith (ie, urocystoliths and urethroliths) removal in dogs. DESIGN: Retrospective case-control study. ANIMALS: 66 dogs with urolithiasis treated by laser lithotripsy (case dogs) and 66 dogs with urolithiasis treated by cystotomy (control dogs). PROCEDURES: Medical records were reviewed. Complete urolith removal rate, resources (ie, duration of hospitalization, procedure time, anesthesia time, procedure cost, and anesthesia cost), and complications (ie, hypotension, hypothermia, incomplete urolith removal, and requirement of an ancillary procedure) were compared between cystotomy group dogs and lithotripsy group dogs. RESULTS: Duration of hospitalization was significantly shorter for lithotripsy group dogs, compared with cystotomy group dogs. Procedure time was significantly shorter for cystotomy group dogs, compared with lithotripsy group dogs. Cost of anesthesia was significantly less for cystotomy group dogs, compared with lithotripsy group dogs. No significant differences were found between cystotomy group dogs and lithotripsy group dogs with regard to urolith removal rate, procedure cost, anesthesia time, or any of the evaluated complications. CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Laser lithotripsy is a minimally invasive procedure that has been shown to be safe and effective in the removal of urocystoliths and urethroliths in dogs. No significant differences were found in the required resources or complications associated with laser lithotripsy, compared with cystotomy, for removal of uroliths from the lower portions of the urinary tract of dogs. Laser lithotripsy is a suitable, minimally invasive alternative to surgical removal of urethroliths and urocystoliths in dogs.

Comparison of holmium: Yag laser and pneumatic lithoclast in percutaneous nephrolithotomy.

OBJECTIVE: To compare holmium Yag laser with lithoclast in patients with renal stones undergoing percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL). METHODS: A comparative cross sectional study was performed on 60 patients undergoing PCNL. Patients with a 2.5 cm stone in renal pelvis, having preoperative negative urine culture, no coagulopathy and fit for general anaesthesia were included, pregnant females were excluded. They were randomly divided into 2 groups of 30 cases each depending on the energy source used. Group A included cases of PCNL subjected to laser treatment and group B had patients undergoing PCNL with pneumatic lithoclast. For each group duration of procedure, any per operative or postoperative complication, residual stone, duration of hospital stay and cost of each procedure were recorded. RESULTS: The average operative time was 125.7 +/- 31.1 minutes in group A and 98.5 +/- 18.7 minutes in group B (P = 0.0001). The overall complication rate was similar in both groups being 13.3% in group A and 23.3% in group B. Residual stone was observed in 17% cases in group A and 13% cases in group B (P = 0.5). The mean postoperative hospital stay was 3.17 +/- 1.6 days in group A and 4 +/- 2.3 days in group B (P = 0.4). Cost analysis showed that the initial capital cost of equipment was 40,000 Euro in laser and 24,000 Euro in pneumatic lithoclast. However because of reuse of fiber the per procedure cost was 60 Euro in laser and 50 Euro in lithoclast group. CONCLUSION: In our experience we found that Holmium: YAG laser and pneumatic lithoclast are both effective and safe lithotriptors for percutaneous stone removal. More operating time was required in laser, more complications encountered with pneumatic lithoclast and a high initial cost of laser. However with increasing experience with laser, more promising results are expected with this new technology. The cost can be compensated by using it in other procedures especially at a public sector hospital.

Cost-Free Laser Caging in the Operating Room.

We have assembled a three-step process for securing and presetting the functional length of the laser fiber to be used for ureteroscopic lithotripsy. For this process, three components are required: a sterile piece of adhesive, an empty guidewire casing with a pre-attached Luer-Lok™ fitting, and a SureSeal® adapter. The only additional piece of equipment for this arrangement not routinely used during ureteroscopy is the sterile adhesive strip.

Technical tip: use of open-ended guidewire to facilitate laser lithotripsy during flexible ureteroscopy.

You have just passed your flexible ureteroscope to the level of the upper-ureteral calculus. The stone is in view, but as you advance the laser fiber, it fails to exit the ureteroscope. All measures to advance the fiber prove futile. Sound familiar? We have found this to be an all too common and frustrating situation with the use of the flexible ureteroscope during laser lithotripsy. Our review of the literature reveals that this subject has not been adequately addressed. We have been successful with the aid of an open-ended 0.035-inch guidewire that admits the 320-microns laser fiber.

Cost-efficacy comparison of extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy and endoscopic laser lithotripsy in distal ureteral stones.

Distal ureteral stones are usually treated today by extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy or extraction by retrograde ureteroscopy with or without previous fragmentation. We performed a cost-efficacy study of three methods to treat them: extracorporeal lithotripsy using either a spark gap lithotripter, the unmodified Dornier HM3 (SWL), or the piezoelectric Wolf Piezolith 2300 (EPL) and endoscopic lasertripsy (LISL) using an alexandrite pulsed laser, the HMT Alexantriptor. The records of 520 patients with distal ureteral stones treated by extracorporeal lithotripsy were reviewed to establish the mean cost of the procedure. Concerning LISL, the first 30 stone patients treated in our institution were evaluated. Four measures were examined: (1) number of sessions; (2) success rate; (3) auxiliary maneuvers; and (4) complications. The economics evaluation considered the direct costs related to personnel, consumables, depreciation, and maintenance. The EPL procedure was the cheapest: $873 US, and SWL the most expensive: $3,572 US. The best cost-efficacy rate was seen with LISL because of its 93% success rate and its cost of $1,390 US.

Cost effectiveness of electrohydraulic lithotripsy v Candela pulsed-dye laser in management of the distal ureteral stone.

To compare the efficacy, safety, and cost of the Candela laser lithotripter with those of the electrohydraulic (EHL) lithotripter in the management of distal ureteral stones, 24 patients with obstructing stones were randomized to laser lithotripsy or EHL. Ureteroscopy was performed with a 6.9F ACMI Miniscope under general anesthesia. Twelve patients were treated with laser lithotripsy using the Candela Air-Cooled MDL 2000 LaserTripter System with a 200-micron pulsed-dye laser fiber. Twelve patients were treated with the Herzog Electrohydraulic LithoTripter using the 1.9F fiber. The following issues were studied: stone-free rates, complications (intraoperative, postoperative, and late), and costs of the procedure. No difference was found in the stone-free or complication rates. One patient was found to have hydronephrosis at 6 months secondary to an unrelated proximal ureteral stone. There was no difference in the efficacy of laser lithotripsy and EHL in the management of distal ureteral stones, but EHL was found to be significantly more cost effective: the cost for EHL was +336 per case, whereas, the cost for lasertripsy was +4220 per case, a greater than 10-fold difference.

[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.

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

PURPOSE: To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of shockwave lithotripsy (SWL) vs ureteroscopic lithotripsy (URS) for patients with renal stones <1.5 cm in diameter. METHODS: Patient age, stone diameter, stone location, and stone-free status were recorded for patients treated with SWL or URS for renal stones <1.5 cm in maximal diameter over a 1-year period. Institutional charges were obtained from in-house billing. A decision analysis model was constructed to compare the cost-effectiveness of SWL and URS and using our results and success rates for modeling. Three separate models were created to reflect practice patterns for SWL. RESULTS: One hundred fifty-eight patients were included in the study-78 underwent SWL and 80 underwent URS as primary treatment. Single procedure stone-free rates (SFR) for SWL and URS were 55% and 95%, respectively (P<0.0001). Decision analysis modeling demonstrated cost-effectiveness of SWL when SWL single procedure SFR were 65% to 67% or when URS single procedure SFR was 72% to 84%. CONCLUSIONS: This retrospective study revealed superior SFR results for renal stones <1.5 cm for URS compared with SWL. Our decision analysis model demonstrates that for SWL SFR less than 65% to 67% or for URS SFR greater than 72% to 84%, SWL is not a cost-effective treatment option. Based on these findings, careful stratification and selection of stone patients may enable surgeons to increase the cost-effectiveness of SWL.

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.

The impact of unplanned postprocedure visits in the management of patients with urinary stones.

BACKGROUND: Unplanned follow-up care is the focus of intense health policy interest, as evidenced by recent financial penalties imposed under the Affordable Care Act. To date, however, unplanned postoperative care remains poorly characterized, particularly for patients with kidney stones. Our objective was to describe the frequency, variation, and financial impact of unplanned, high-acuity, follow-up visits in the treatment of patients with urinary stone disease. METHODS: We identified privately insured patients undergoing percutaneous nephrostolithotomy, ureteroscopy, or shock-wave lithotripsy for stone disease. The primary outcome was occurrence of an emergency department visit or hospital admission within 30 days of the procedure. Multivariable models estimated the odds of an unplanned visit and the incremental cost of those visits, controlling for important covariates. RESULTS: We identified 93,523 initial procedures to fragment or remove stones. Overall, 1 in 7 patients had an unplanned postprocedural visit. Unplanned visits were least common after shock-wave lithotripsy (12%) and occurred with similar frequency after ureteroscopy and percutaneous nephrostolithotomy (15%). Procedures at high-volume facilities were substantially less likely to result in an unplanned visit (odds ratio 0.80, 95% confidence interval [95% CI] 0.74-0.87, P < .001). When an unplanned visit occurred, adjusted incremental expenditures per episode were greater after shock-wave lithotripsy ($32,156 [95% CI $30,453-33,859]) than after ureteroscopy ($23,436 [95% CI $22,281-24,590]). CONCLUSION: Patients not infrequently experience an unplanned, high-acuity visit after low-risk procedures to remove urinary stones, and the cost of these encounters is substantial. Interventions are indicated to identify and reduce preventable unplanned visits.