PURPOSE: To audit the cost of laser versus pneumatic semirigid ureteroscopic lithotripsy and to analyze their relative initial outcomes and cost. METHODS: Hundred and eighty-seven patients who underwent semirigid ureteroscopic lithotripsy were analyzed retrospectively in terms of age and sex of the patients; location and size of the stones; the type of probe and ancillary equipment such as guide wire, basket catheter, JJ stent requirements; irrigation amount; operation time; the cost of the anesthesia and further treatments such as a JJ stent removal operation and shock wave lithotripsy requirements and their costs. Two groups were formed based on this type of lithotripters, pneumatic and laser lithotripsy. RESULTS: Operation times (min.) in terms of the stone size, for stones <100 and >100 mm(2) were 20.75 ± 10.78 and 25.82 ± 14.23, respectively (p = 0.007). Operation times for the pneumatic and laser groups were 33.05 ± 11.36 and 15.25 ± 6.14, respectively (p < 0.05).The stone-free rates for pneumatic and laser groups were 89.6 % (n = 69) and 98.2 % (n = 108), respectively (p = 0.01). The mean cost of the operations for each of the study groups was 261.5 ± 66.13 and 311.7 ± 51.97 US$, respectively (p = 0.001). The mean cost in terms of the stone size, for stones <100 and >100 mm(2), was 272.86 ± 53.05 and 323.71 ± 66.88 US$, respectively (p = 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: It seems that usage of laser lithotripsy (LL) in patients with ureteral stones is more effective than pneumatic lithotripsy (PL) in terms of operation time and SF rate. On the other hand, the mean cost of LL seems to be more expensive than PL. Urologists should think these parameters before the choice of these two treatment modalities. The higher the effectiveness, the greater the cost.
PURPOSE: To audit the cost of laser versus pneumatic semirigid ureteroscopic lithotripsy and to analyze their relative initial outcomes and cost. METHODS: Hundred and eighty-seven patients who underwent semirigid ureteroscopic lithotripsy were analyzed retrospectively in terms of age and sex of the patients; location and size of the stones; the type of probe and ancillary equipment such as guide wire, basket catheter, JJ stent requirements; irrigation amount; operation time; the cost of the anesthesia and further treatments such as a JJ stent removal operation and shock wave lithotripsy requirements and their costs. Two groups were formed based on this type of lithotripters, pneumatic and laser lithotripsy. RESULTS: Operation times (min.) in terms of the stone size, for stones <100 and >100 mm(2) were 20.75 ± 10.78 and 25.82 ± 14.23, respectively (p = 0.007). Operation times for the pneumatic and laser groups were 33.05 ± 11.36 and 15.25 ± 6.14, respectively (p < 0.05).The stone-free rates for pneumatic and laser groups were 89.6 % (n = 69) and 98.2 % (n = 108), respectively (p = 0.01). The mean cost of the operations for each of the study groups was 261.5 ± 66.13 and 311.7 ± 51.97 US$, respectively (p = 0.001). The mean cost in terms of the stone size, for stones <100 and >100 mm(2), was 272.86 ± 53.05 and 323.71 ± 66.88 US$, respectively (p = 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: It seems that usage of laser lithotripsy (LL) in patients with ureteral stones is more effective than pneumatic lithotripsy (PL) in terms of operation time and SF rate. On the other hand, the mean cost of LL seems to be more expensive than PL. Urologists should think these parameters before the choice of these two treatment modalities. The higher the effectiveness, the greater the cost.
Authors: Mahfuza Ahmed; Renato N Pedro; Sam Kieley; Joseph W Akornor; William K Durfee; Manoj Monga Journal: Urology Date: 2009-05 Impact factor: 2.649
Authors: Shivadeo S Bapat; Ketan V Pai; Satyajeet S Purnapatre; Pushkaraj B Yadav; Abhijit S Padye Journal: J Endourol Date: 2007-12 Impact factor: 2.942
Authors: Murat Bagcioglu; Aslan Demir; Hasan Sulhan; Mert Ali Karadag; Mehmet Uslu; Umit Yener Tekdogan Journal: Urolithiasis Date: 2015-10-16 Impact factor: 3.436
Authors: Michael Ordon; Sero Andonian; Brian Blew; Trevor Schuler; Ben Chew; Kenneth T Pace Journal: Can Urol Assoc J Date: 2015-12-14 Impact factor: 1.862