Literature DB >> 1439601

Cost effectiveness of extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy and percutaneous nephrolithotomy for medium-sized kidney stones. A randomised clinical trial.

P Carlsson1, A C Kinn, H G Tiselius, H Ohlsén, M Rahmqvist.   

Abstract

To evaluate percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PNL) and extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL) for their clinical effects, their cost effectiveness, their complication rates, and the patients' experiences, 55 consecutive patients were randomised to have one or other operation between October 1986 and October 1988. Six patients were excluded, 21 were treated with PNL and 28 with ESWL as primary treatment. Mean hospital stay and length of treatment were longer for PNL than for ESWL. Since 1 July 1987 all patients having ESWL have been treated without anaesthesia (n = 15), whereas epidural anaesthesia was used for all PNL. Slightly more of the ESWL patients experienced some pain during treatment. Minor complications or pain were more common after ESWL during the first 10 days after discharge from hospital. If patients with stone fragments of 4 mm or less were regarded as having a successful outcome, the success rates after one year were 94% for PNL and 77% for ESWL. The overall total cost was lower for ESWL than for PNL, the cost per successfully treated patient being 2172 pounds for PNL and 1810 pounds for ESWL. Medium sized kidney stones (6-30 mm, or 2-3 stones of 20 mm or less) can be efficiently and cheaply treated by both PNL and ESWL, though the cost of ESWL is lower. Even if effects other than cost (such as complications and patients' experience) are borne in mind, ESWL was superior to PNL for this group of patients.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1992        PMID: 1439601     DOI: 10.3109/00365599209180879

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Scand J Urol Nephrol        ISSN: 0036-5599


  8 in total

Review 1.  [Modern urinary stone therapy: is the era of extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy at an end?].

Authors:  A Miernik; K Wilhelm; P Ardelt; S Bulla; M Schoenthaler
Journal:  Urologe A       Date:  2012-03       Impact factor: 0.639

Review 2.  Arguments for choosing extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy for removal of urinary tract stones.

Authors:  Hans-Göran Tiselius; Christian G Chaussy
Journal:  Urolithiasis       Date:  2015-08-28       Impact factor: 3.436

3.  [Extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL) versus percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL) or retrograde intrarenal surgery (RIRS) for kidney stones].

Authors:  S Schmidt; A Miernik
Journal:  Urologe A       Date:  2015-09       Impact factor: 0.639

4.  Tubeless mini-percutaneous nephrolithotomy versus retrograde intrarenal surgery for lower calyceal stones of ⩽2 cm: A prospective randomised controlled study.

Authors:  Amr S Fayad; Mohamed G Elsheikh; Waleed Ghoneima
Journal:  Arab J Urol       Date:  2016-11-29

5.  The effectiveness and safety of extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy for the management of kidney stones: A protocol of systematic review and meta-analysis.

Authors:  Yong-Chun Qiang; Yu-Ge Guo; Yun-Qi Wang
Journal:  Medicine (Baltimore)       Date:  2020-05       Impact factor: 1.889

6.  Retrograde upper-pole calyceal access for percutaneous nephrolithotripsy of stones in the lower-pole calyx.

Authors:  Khalid M Al-Otaibi
Journal:  Arab J Urol       Date:  2012-09-23

7.  Cost-effectiveness of extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy in a poor resource setting: The Okada, Nigeria experience.

Authors:  Kenneth C Eze; E Irekpita; T A Salami
Journal:  Niger Med J       Date:  2016 Jan-Feb

Review 8.  An overview of treatment options for urinary stones.

Authors:  Hamid Shafi; Bobak Moazzami; Mohsen Pourghasem; Aliakbar Kasaeian
Journal:  Caspian J Intern Med       Date:  2016
  8 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.