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 comparison of renal calculi treated with ureteroscopic laser lithotripsy versus shockwave lithotripsy.
    Author: Cone EB, Eisner BH, Ursiny M, Pareek G.
    Journal: J Endourol; 2014 Jun; 28(6):639-43. PubMed ID: 24444144.
    Abstract:
    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.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]