Literature DB >> 21172705

Use of internal stent, external transanastomotic stent or no stent during pediatric pyeloplasty: a decision tree cost-effectiveness analysis.

Jenny H Yiee1, Laurence S Baskin.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: Copious studies exist regarding the use of stents in pediatric pyeloplasty. Most surgeons use either no stent, an internal (Double-J®) stent or an external transanastomotic pyeloureteral stent. We propose the first known study to compare all 3 methods using a decision tree model that incorporates success rates, complications, patient discomfort and costs.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: We created a deterministic decision tree model. We conducted a literature search querying urinary diversion in pediatric pyeloplasty. We used the largest studies for base inputs and remaining studies for sensitivity analysis. Direct costs from actual patients seen at the University of California San Francisco populated cost inputs.
RESULTS: Total quality adjusted life-years during a 16-year period for no stents was 12.70851 with a total cost of $6,122. Total quality adjusted life-years for external stents was 12.71098 at a total cost of $5,702. Internal stents resulted in total quality adjusted life-years of 12.69983 and cost of $8,421. Thus, external stents dominated no stents and internal stents, while no stents dominated internal stents. On sensitivity analysis even decreasing complication and failure rates of internal stents to zero did not make them cost effective due to the costs associated with stent removal. In contrast, decreasing complication and pyeloplasty rates of no stents by 20% resulted in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $5,475 per quality adjusted life-year gained compared to external stents.
CONCLUSIONS: External and no stents are superior to internal stents. Given high overall success rates of pyeloplasty regardless of stent method, perhaps more attention should be given to cost from a health policy standpoint. Copyright Â
© 2011 American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2010        PMID: 21172705     DOI: 10.1016/j.juro.2010.09.118

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Urol        ISSN: 0022-5347            Impact factor:   7.450


  6 in total

1.  Impact of drainage technique on pediatric pyeloplasty: Comparative analysis of externalized uretero-pyelostomy versus double-J internal stents.

Authors:  Linda C Lee; Niki Kanaroglou; Joseph M Gleason; Joao L Pippi Salle; Darius J Bägli; Martin A Koyle; Armando J Lorenzo
Journal:  Can Urol Assoc J       Date:  2015 Jul-Aug       Impact factor: 1.862

2.  Is confirmation of ureteric stent placement in laparoscopic pyeloplasty necessary?

Authors:  D B Hennessey; N J Kinnear; R M Evans; C Hagan; A Thwaini
Journal:  Int Urol Nephrol       Date:  2017-03-04       Impact factor: 2.370

3.  External extension of double-J ureteral stent during pyeloplasty: inexpensive stent and non-cystoscopic removal.

Authors:  Abdol-Mohammad Kajbafzadeh; Atefeh Zeinoddini; Maryam Ebadi; Reza Heidari; Afshin Tajalli
Journal:  Int Urol Nephrol       Date:  2013-11-08       Impact factor: 2.370

4.  Urinary tract obstruction: stents in pyeloplasty: beware of false precision.

Authors:  Craig A Peters
Journal:  Nat Rev Urol       Date:  2011-05       Impact factor: 14.432

5.  Estimated cost savings from reducing errors in the preparation of sterile doses of medications.

Authors:  Terry F Urbine; Philip J Schneider
Journal:  Hosp Pharm       Date:  2014-09

6.  Cutaneous pyeloureteral stent for laparoscopic (robot)-assisted pyeloplasty.

Authors:  Pankaj P Dangle; Anup B Shah; Mohan S Gundeti
Journal:  J Endourol       Date:  2014-03-24       Impact factor: 2.942

  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.