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.
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.
Authors: Theresa A Zwaschka; Justin S Ahn; Bryan W Cunitz; Michael R Bailey; Barbrina Dunmire; Mathew D Sorensen; Jonathan D Harper; Adam D Maxwell Journal: J Endourol Date: 2018-03-20 Impact factor: 2.942
Authors: Ranan Dasgupta; Sarah Cameron; Lorna Aucott; Graeme MacLennan; Mary M Kilonzo; Thomas Bl Lam; Ruth Thomas; John Norrie; Alison McDonald; Ken Anson; James N'Dow; Neil Burgess; Charles T Clark; Francis X Keeley; Sara J MacLennan; Kath Starr; Samuel McClinton Journal: Health Technol Assess Date: 2022-03 Impact factor: 4.014
Authors: Steeve Doizi; Guido Kamphuis; Guido Giusti; Kim Hovgaard Andreassen; Thomas Knoll; Palle Jörn Osther; Cesare Scoffone; Daniel Pérez-Fentes; Silvia Proietti; Oliver Wiseman; Jean de la Rosette; Olivier Traxer Journal: World J Urol Date: 2016-09-26 Impact factor: 4.226
Authors: Jian J Zhang; Jonathan Rutherford; Metasebya Solomon; Brian Cheng; Jason R Xuan; Jason Gong; Honggang Yu; Michael L D Xia; Xirong Yang; Thomas Hasenberg; Sean Curran Journal: J Healthc Eng Date: 2018-03-07 Impact factor: 2.682