Literature DB >> 28197765

A cost analysis of stenting in uncomplicated semirigid ureteroscopic stone removal.

Stephan Seklehner1,2, Karl-Dietrich Sievert3, Richard Lee4, Paul F Engelhardt5,3, Claus Riedl5, Thomas Kunit3.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the outcome and the costs of stenting in uncomplicated semirigid ureteroscopic stone removal.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: A decision tree model was created to evaluate the economic impact of routine stenting versus non-stenting strategies in uncomplicated ureteroscopy (URS). Probabilities of complications were extracted from twelve randomized controlled trials. Stone removal costs, costs for complication management, and total costs were calculated using Treeage Pro (TreeAge Pro Healthcare version 2015, Software, Inc, Williamstown Massachusetts, USA).
RESULTS: Stone removal costs were higher in stented URS (€1512.25 vs. €1681.21, respectively). Complication management costs were higher in non-stented procedures. Both for complications treated conservatively (€189.43 vs. €109.67) and surgically (€49.26 vs. €24.83). When stone removal costs, costs for stent removal, and costs for complication management were considered, uncomplicated URS with stent placement yielded an overall cost per patient of €1889.15 compared to €1750.94 without stent placement. The incremental costs of stented URS were €138.25 per procedure.
CONCLUSION: Semirigid URS with stent placement leads to higher direct procedural costs. Costs for managing URS-related complications are higher in non-stented procedures. Overall, a standard strategy of deferring routine stenting uncomplicated ureteroscopic stone removal is more cost efficient.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Cost–benefit analysis; Ureteral calculi; Ureteroscopy; Urolithiasis

Mesh:

Year:  2017        PMID: 28197765     DOI: 10.1007/s11255-017-1538-6

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Int Urol Nephrol        ISSN: 0301-1623            Impact factor:   2.370


  24 in total

1.  Differences in ureteroscopic stone treatment and outcomes for distal, mid-, proximal, or multiple ureteral locations: the Clinical Research Office of the Endourological Society ureteroscopy global study.

Authors:  Enrique Perez Castro; Palle J S Osther; Viorel Jinga; Hassan Razvi; Konstantinos G Stravodimos; Kandarp Parikh; Ali R Kural; Jean J de la Rosette
Journal:  Eur Urol       Date:  2014-01-23       Impact factor: 20.096

2.  A prospective randomized controlled trial on ureteral stenting after ureteroscopic holmium laser lithotripsy.

Authors:  M C Cheung; F Lee; Y L Leung; B B Wong; P C Tam
Journal:  J Urol       Date:  2003-04       Impact factor: 7.450

3.  Is stent placement necessary after uncomplicated ureteroscopy for removal of impacted ureteral stones?

Authors:  Ibrahim Cevik; Ozdal Dillioglugil; Atif Akdas; Yoram Siegel
Journal:  J Endourol       Date:  2010-08       Impact factor: 2.942

4.  Direct and indirect costs of nephrolithiasis in an employed population: opportunity for disease management?

Authors:  Christopher S Saigal; Geoffrey Joyce; Anga R Timilsina
Journal:  Kidney Int       Date:  2005-10       Impact factor: 10.612

5.  Routine ureteral stenting after ureteroscopy for ureteral lithiasis: is it really necessary?

Authors:  N R Netto; J Ikonomidis; C Zillo
Journal:  J Urol       Date:  2001-10       Impact factor: 7.450

6.  Prevalence of kidney stones in the United States.

Authors:  Charles D Scales; Alexandria C Smith; Janet M Hanley; Christopher S Saigal
Journal:  Eur Urol       Date:  2012-03-31       Impact factor: 20.096

7.  Is routine ureteral stenting necessary after uncomplicated ureteroscopic lithotripsy for lower ureteral stones larger than 1 cm?

Authors:  Kenan Isen; Isen Kenan; Salih Bogatekin; Bogatekin Salih; Suat Em; Em Suat; Huseyin Ergin; Ergin Huseyin; Vehbi Kilic; Kilic Vehbi
Journal:  Urol Res       Date:  2008-04-02

8.  Ureteric stenting after ureteroscopy for ureteric stones: a prospective randomized study assessing symptoms and complications.

Authors:  H Jeong; C Kwak; S E Lee
Journal:  BJU Int       Date:  2004-05       Impact factor: 5.588

9.  Nonstented versus routine stented ureteroscopic holmium laser lithotripsy: a prospective randomized trial.

Authors:  Yi Shao; Jian Zhuo; Xiao-Wen Sun; Wei Wen; Hai-Tao Liu; Shu-Jie Xia
Journal:  Urol Res       Date:  2008-09-17

10.  Stent positioning after ureteroscopy for urinary calculi: the question is still open.

Authors:  Rocco Damiano; Riccardo Autorino; Ciro Esposito; Francesco Cantiello; Rosario Sacco; Marco de Sio; Massimo D'Armiento
Journal:  Eur Urol       Date:  2004-09       Impact factor: 20.096

View more
  5 in total

1.  The application of a single-use fiberoptic flexible ureteroscope for the management of upper urinary calculi.

Authors:  Feng Wang; Yu Yang; Honde Chen; Hang Huang; Weiping Huang; Zhiliang Weng; Hui Xie
Journal:  Int Urol Nephrol       Date:  2018-05-24       Impact factor: 2.370

2.  Ureteral stenting practices following routine ureteroscopy: an international survey.

Authors:  Jorge F Pereira; Paul Bower; Eric Jung; Egor Parkhomenko; Timothy Tran; Simone Thavaseelan; Gyan Pareek
Journal:  World J Urol       Date:  2019-02-11       Impact factor: 4.226

Review 3.  Silicone vs. Polyurethane Stent: The Final Countdown.

Authors:  Suresh Mathias; Oliver Wiseman
Journal:  J Clin Med       Date:  2022-05-12       Impact factor: 4.964

4.  Indications for stent omission after ureteroscopic lithotripsy defined: A single-institution experience with cost analysis.

Authors:  Paul E Bower; Jorge Pereira; Osama Al-Alao; Ohad Kott; Danielle Velez; Simone Thavaseelan; Gyan Pareek
Journal:  Arab J Urol       Date:  2019-05-16

Review 5.  Ureteral stents in urolithiasis.

Authors:  Matthias Beysens; Thomas O Tailly
Journal:  Asian J Urol       Date:  2018-07-25
  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.