Martin Schoenthaler1, Konrad Wilhelm1, Simon Hein1, Fabian Adams1, Daniel Schlager1, Ulrich Wetterauer1, Azad Hawizy2, Andreas Bourdoumis2, Janak Desai3, Arkadiusz Miernik4. 1. Department of Urology, University Medical Centre Freiburg, Hugstetterstr. 55, 79106, Freiburg, Germany. 2. Department of Urology, Endourology and Stone Services, Royal London Hospital, Bartshealth NHS Trust, London, E1 1BB, UK. 3. Department of Urology, Samved Hospital, Nr. Stadium Circle, Navrangpura, Ahmedabad, 380 009, Gujarat, India. 4. Department of Urology, University Medical Centre Freiburg, Hugstetterstr. 55, 79106, Freiburg, Germany. arkadiusz.miernik@uniklinik-freiburg.de.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Latest publications state equal efficacy of a recently introduced new percutaneous technique ("ultra-mini PCNL", UMP) and flexible ureteroscopy (fURS) in the treatment of medium-size urinary stones. Today we face challenges concerning cost-effectiveness and reduction of in-hospital length of stay. In this retrospective study, we compare clinical outcome parameters and costs of treatment (endoscopes and disposables) of both techniques. METHODS: Thirty patients treated by UMP at two tertiary university centres were matched to 30 fURS patients from previously recorded databases. Data analysis included operating time, length of stay, stone-free rates (SFR), complications (>Clavien II), ancillary procedures (presurgical ureteral stenting, secondary ureteral stenting or placement of a nephrostomy tube, secondary procedures) and costs for disposable materials and instruments (endoscopes, as calculated per procedure). RESULTS: We found no significant differences in operating times (UMP vs. fURS: 121/102 min), hospital length of stay (2.3/2.0 days), SFR (84/87 %) and complications (7/7 %). Costs for disposable materials and endoscopes were 656 euro (UMP) and 1,160 euro (fURS) per procedure. CONCLUSIONS: UMP and fURS are both safe and effective in the treatment of medium-size urinary stones. Costs for endoscopes and disposable materials are significantly lower in UMP.
PURPOSE: Latest publications state equal efficacy of a recently introduced new percutaneous technique ("ultra-mini PCNL", UMP) and flexible ureteroscopy (fURS) in the treatment of medium-size urinary stones. Today we face challenges concerning cost-effectiveness and reduction of in-hospital length of stay. In this retrospective study, we compare clinical outcome parameters and costs of treatment (endoscopes and disposables) of both techniques. METHODS: Thirty patients treated by UMP at two tertiary university centres were matched to 30 fURSpatients from previously recorded databases. Data analysis included operating time, length of stay, stone-free rates (SFR), complications (>Clavien II), ancillary procedures (presurgical ureteral stenting, secondary ureteral stenting or placement of a nephrostomy tube, secondary procedures) and costs for disposable materials and instruments (endoscopes, as calculated per procedure). RESULTS: We found no significant differences in operating times (UMP vs. fURS: 121/102 min), hospital length of stay (2.3/2.0 days), SFR (84/87 %) and complications (7/7 %). Costs for disposable materials and endoscopes were 656 euro (UMP) and 1,160 euro (fURS) per procedure. CONCLUSIONS:UMP and fURS are both safe and effective in the treatment of medium-size urinary stones. Costs for endoscopes and disposable materials are significantly lower in UMP.
Entities:
Keywords:
Costs of treatment; Flexible ureteroscopy; Nephrolithiasis; Ultra-mini percutaneous nephrolithotomy
Authors: Akito Yamaguchi; Andreas Skolarikos; Niels-Peter Noor Buchholz; Gonzalo Bueno Chomón; Michael Grasso; Pietro Saba; Stephen Nakada; Jean de la Rosette Journal: J Endourol Date: 2011-05-13 Impact factor: 2.942
Authors: Ravindra B Sabnis; Raguram Ganesamoni; Amit Doshi; Arvind P Ganpule; Jitendra Jagtap; Mahesh R Desai Journal: BJU Int Date: 2013-08 Impact factor: 5.588
Authors: Jean de la Rosette; Dean Assimos; Mahesh Desai; Jorge Gutierrez; James Lingeman; Roberto Scarpa; Ahmet Tefekli Journal: J Endourol Date: 2011-01 Impact factor: 2.942
Authors: Martin Schoenthaler; Konrad Wilhelm; Franklin E Kuehhas; Erik Farin; Christian Bach; Noor Buchholz; Arkadiusz Miernik Journal: J Endourol Date: 2012-08-27 Impact factor: 2.942
Authors: Konrad Wilhelm; Simon Hein; Fabian Adams; Daniel Schlager; Arkadiusz Miernik; Martin Schoenthaler Journal: World J Urol Date: 2015-05-14 Impact factor: 4.226
Authors: Eoin MacCraith; Niall F Davis; Cliodhna Browne; David J Galvin; David M Quinlan; Gerald M Lennon; David W Mulvin Journal: J Clin Diagn Res Date: 2016-10-01
Authors: G Bozzini; P Verze; D Arcaniolo; O Dal Piaz; N M Buffi; G Guazzoni; M Provenzano; B Osmolorskij; F Sanguedolce; E Montanari; N Macchione; K Pummer; V Mirone; M De Sio; G Taverna Journal: World J Urol Date: 2017-09-05 Impact factor: 4.226
Authors: Soumendra N Datta; Ramandeep S Chalokia; K W Wing; K Patel; R Solanki; Janak Desai Journal: Urolithiasis Date: 2022-02-02 Impact factor: 3.436