These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: Cost-effectiveness of treating ureteral stones in a Taipei City Hospital: shock wave lithotripsy versus ureteroscopy plus lithoclast.
    Author: Huang CY, Chen SS, Chen LK.
    Journal: Urol Int; 2009; 83(4):410-5. PubMed ID: 19996647.
    Abstract:
    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.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]