Literature DB >> 25694010

Renal calculi: trends in the utilization of shockwave lithotripsy and ureteroscopy.

Stephan Seklehner1, Melissa A Laudano, Joseph Del Pizzo, Bilal Chughtai, Richard K Lee.   

Abstract

INTRODUCTION: To assess trends in the usage of extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy (SWL) and ureteroscopy (URS) in the treatment of renal calculi.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: An analysis of the 5% Medicare Public Use Files (years 2001, 2004, 2007 and 2010) was performed to evaluate changes in the use of SWL and URS to treat renal calculi. Patients were identified using ICD-9 (cm) and CPT codes. Statistical analyses, including the Fisher, 2 tests, and multivariate logistic regression analysis were performed using SAS 9.3 (SAS Institute Inc., Cary, NC, USA) and SPSS v20 (IBM Corp., Armonk, NY, USA).
RESULTS: The absolute number of patients diagnosed with (+85.1%) and treated for (+31.5%) kidney calculi increased from 2001 to 2010. The ratio of diagnosed/treated patients declined from 15.2% in 2001 to 10.8% in 2010. Whites (OR = 1.27, p < 0.0001), patients in the South (OR = 1.16, p < 0.0001) and those ≤ 84 years of age were more likely to be treated. The utilization of SWL (84.7%) was greater than URS (15.3%), but the utilization of URS increased over time from 8.4% in 2001 to 20.6% of cases by 2010 (p < 0.0001). Treatment via URS was more likely in women (OR = 1.28, p < 0.0001), in patients living outside the South (OR = 1.29-1.45, p ≤ 0.006) and in later years of the study (OR = 2.87, p < 0.0001).
CONCLUSIONS: Treatment patterns for renal calculi changed from 2001 to 2010. The usage of URS increased at the cost of SWL. Multiple sociodemographic factors correlated with the likelihood of being treated surgically as well as the choice of the surgical approach.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2015        PMID: 25694010

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Can J Urol        ISSN: 1195-9479            Impact factor:   1.344


  6 in total

1.  Neutrophil gelatinase-associated lipocalin (NGAL) value changes before and after shock wave lithotripsy.

Authors:  Matteo Vittori; Silvia Baroni; Pietro Manuel Ferraro; Giovanni Gambaro; Renato Morelli; PierFrancesco Bassi; Alessandro D'Addessi
Journal:  Urolithiasis       Date:  2016-10-27       Impact factor: 3.436

2.  Urolithiasis in Germany: Trends from the National DRG Database.

Authors:  Hendrik Heers; David Stay; Thomas Wiesmann; Rainer Hofmann
Journal:  Urol Int       Date:  2021-12-09       Impact factor: 1.934

3.  Difference of opinion--In the era of flexible ureteroscopy is there still a place for Shock-wave lithotripsy? Opinion: NO.

Authors:  Fabio C Vicentini
Journal:  Int Braz J Urol       Date:  2015 Mar-Apr       Impact factor: 1.541

Review 4.  Recent advances in understanding and managing urolithiasis.

Authors:  Walter L Strohmaier
Journal:  F1000Res       Date:  2016-11-08

5.  Numerical Response Surfaces of Volume of Ablation and Retropulsion Amplitude by Settings of Ho:YAG Laser Lithotripter.

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

6.  Urolithiasis, Independent of Uric Acid, Increased Risk of Coronary Artery and Carotid Atherosclerosis: A Meta-Analysis of Observational Studies.

Authors:  Wei Luo; Yao Zhou; Chenlin Gao; Pijun Yan; Ling Xu
Journal:  Biomed Res Int       Date:  2020-02-20       Impact factor: 3.411

  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.