Michal Ursiny1, Brian H Eisner. 1. Kidney Stone Center, Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, USA.
Abstract
PURPOSE: We evaluated the cost-effectiveness of anti-retropulsion devices used during ureteroscopic lithotripsy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A decision analysis model was constructed to compare the cost-effectiveness of ureteroscopic lithotripsy with vs without an anti-retropulsion device. The risk of stone retropulsion was determined from published data in the English language literature. Expected value calculations were used to determine whether the additional cost of a device would be cost-effective to prevent secondary procedures used to treat retropulsed stones. Device cost was determined using the average cost of all commercially available devices. RESULTS: It became cost-effective to use an anti-retropulsion device at or above a 6.3% retropulsion rate. The weighted probability of retropulsion with vs without an anti-retropulsion device was 98.1% vs 83.7%. The estimated costs of secondary procedures needed to treat retropulsed stones were $5,290 for shock wave lithotripsy and $6,390 for ureteroscopy. Average device cost was $278. Thus, the average additional cost of ureteroscopic lithotripsy with vs without an anti-migration device would be $384 vs $952. CONCLUSIONS: It is cost-effective to use an anti-retropulsion device at a retropulsion rate of greater than 6.3%.
PURPOSE: We evaluated the cost-effectiveness of anti-retropulsion devices used during ureteroscopic lithotripsy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A decision analysis model was constructed to compare the cost-effectiveness of ureteroscopic lithotripsy with vs without an anti-retropulsion device. The risk of stone retropulsion was determined from published data in the English language literature. Expected value calculations were used to determine whether the additional cost of a device would be cost-effective to prevent secondary procedures used to treat retropulsed stones. Device cost was determined using the average cost of all commercially available devices. RESULTS: It became cost-effective to use an anti-retropulsion device at or above a 6.3% retropulsion rate. The weighted probability of retropulsion with vs without an anti-retropulsion device was 98.1% vs 83.7%. The estimated costs of secondary procedures needed to treat retropulsed stones were $5,290 for shock wave lithotripsy and $6,390 for ureteroscopy. Average device cost was $278. Thus, the average additional cost of ureteroscopic lithotripsy with vs without an anti-migration device would be $384 vs $952. CONCLUSIONS: It is cost-effective to use an anti-retropulsion device at a retropulsion rate of greater than 6.3%.
Authors: Jonathan Cloutier; Ken Anson; Guido Giusti; Michael Grasso; Guido Kamphuis; Sven Lahme; Evangelos Liatsikos; Anup Patel; Margaret S Pearle; Luc Valiquette; Olivier Traxer Journal: World J Urol Date: 2017-07-25 Impact factor: 4.226
Authors: Noah E Canvasser; Peter Alken; Michael Lipkin; Stephen Y Nakada; Hiren S Sodha; Abdulkadir Tepeler; Yair Lotan Journal: World J Urol Date: 2017-01-20 Impact factor: 4.226
Authors: Simon Hein; Arkadiusz Miernik; Konrad Wilhelm; Fabian Adams; Daniel Schlager; Thomas R W Herrmann; Jens J Rassweiler; Martin Schoenthaler Journal: World J Urol Date: 2015-10-23 Impact factor: 4.226
Authors: Essam A Shalaby; Khaled M Abdelhalim; Mohamed Bakr; Ahmed A El-Lilly; Mohamed A Elkoushy Journal: Urolithiasis Date: 2022-04-22 Impact factor: 2.861