Tags

Type your tag names separated by a space and hit enter

Cost-effectiveness analysis of ureteroscopic laser lithotripsy and shock wave lithotripsy in the management of ureteral calculi in eastern China.
Urol Int. 2011; 86(4):470-5.UI

Abstract

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.

Authors+Show Affiliations

Department of Urology, Shanghai Pudong New Area Gongli Hospital, Shanghai, China.No affiliation info availableNo affiliation info availableNo affiliation info availableNo affiliation info available

Pub Type(s)

Journal Article
Randomized Controlled Trial
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't

Language

eng

PubMed ID

21597268

Citation

Zhang, Jing, et al. "Cost-effectiveness Analysis of Ureteroscopic Laser Lithotripsy and Shock Wave Lithotripsy in the Management of Ureteral Calculi in Eastern China." Urologia Internationalis, vol. 86, no. 4, 2011, pp. 470-5.
Zhang J, Shi Q, Wang GZ, et al. Cost-effectiveness analysis of ureteroscopic laser lithotripsy and shock wave lithotripsy in the management of ureteral calculi in eastern China. Urol Int. 2011;86(4):470-5.
Zhang, J., Shi, Q., Wang, G. Z., Wang, F., & Jiang, N. (2011). Cost-effectiveness analysis of ureteroscopic laser lithotripsy and shock wave lithotripsy in the management of ureteral calculi in eastern China. Urologia Internationalis, 86(4), 470-5. https://doi.org/10.1159/000324479
Zhang J, et al. Cost-effectiveness Analysis of Ureteroscopic Laser Lithotripsy and Shock Wave Lithotripsy in the Management of Ureteral Calculi in Eastern China. Urol Int. 2011;86(4):470-5. PubMed PMID: 21597268.
* Article titles in AMA citation format should be in sentence-case
TY - JOUR T1 - Cost-effectiveness analysis of ureteroscopic laser lithotripsy and shock wave lithotripsy in the management of ureteral calculi in eastern China. AU - Zhang,Jing, AU - Shi,Quan, AU - Wang,Guo-Zeng, AU - Wang,Fei, AU - Jiang,Ning, Y1 - 2011/05/18/ PY - 2010/07/10/received PY - 2011/01/19/accepted PY - 2011/5/21/entrez PY - 2011/5/21/pubmed PY - 2011/11/5/medline SP - 470 EP - 5 JF - Urologia internationalis JO - Urol Int VL - 86 IS - 4 N2 - 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. SN - 1423-0399 UR - https://www.unboundmedicine.com/medline/citation/21597268/Cost_effectiveness_analysis_of_ureteroscopic_laser_lithotripsy_and_shock_wave_lithotripsy_in_the_management_of_ureteral_calculi_in_eastern_China_ L2 - https://www.karger.com?DOI=10.1159/000324479 DB - PRIME DP - Unbound Medicine ER -