Literature DB >> 30628473

Changing Trends in the Treatment of Nephrolithiasis in the Real World.

Kyung Jin Chung1,2, Jae Heon Kim1, Gyeong Eun Min1, Hyoung Keun Park1, Shufeng Li1,3, Francesco Del Giudice4, Deok Hyun Han1,5, Benjamin I Chung1.   

Abstract

INTRODUCTION: Changes in the surgical treatment of nephrolithiasis, owing to recent technical advances and innovations, have made treatments more effective and less invasive. In this retrospective, observational cohort study, we identified the changing trends in the treatment of nephrolithiasis.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: We included patients with newly diagnosed nephrolithiasis who received any treatment in the United States, including extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy (SWL), retrograde intrarenal surgery (RIRS), percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL), and open surgery, from January 2007 to December 2014. Demographic factors, such as age, sex, region, surgical treatment type, and cost data, were analyzed.
RESULTS: The median age of patients at treatment was 52 years, and the ratio of men and women was similar. There were definite changes in the trends of all treatment modalities (p < 0.01). Both the number and percentage tended to increase for RIRS, whereas for SWL, the number increased, but the percentage showed a steady decrease. In PCNL, both number and percentage increased to a minor degree. The overall cost of nephrolithiasis treatments during the study period nearly doubled (from $30,998,726 to $57,310,956). The number of treatments and average cost per treatment increased annually for each treatment modality. RIRS was the least expensive; the other procedures in decreasing order of their mean costs were as follows: SWL, PCNL, and open surgery.
CONCLUSIONS: There was a gradual but constant change in treatment trends of nephrolithiasis, with an increasing trend for RIRS and a decreasing trend for SWL. Although PCNL has relatively invasive characteristics, it is still in steady demand.

Entities:  

Keywords:  cost and cost analysis; lithotripsy; nephrolithiasis; operative; therapeutics

Mesh:

Year:  2019        PMID: 30628473     DOI: 10.1089/end.2018.0667

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Endourol        ISSN: 0892-7790            Impact factor:   2.942


  11 in total

1.  Contemporary trends in the surgical management of urinary incontinence after radical prostatectomy in the United States.

Authors:  Francesco Del Giudice; Jianlin Huang; Shufeng Li; Simon Sorensen; Ekene Enemchukwu; Martina Maggi; Stefano Salciccia; Matteo Ferro; Felice Crocetto; Savio Domenico Pandolfo; Riccardo Autorino; Wojciech Krajewski; Simone Crivellaro; Giovanni E Cacciamani; Eugenio Bologna; Vincenzo Asero; Carlo Scornajenghi; Marco Moschini; David D'Andrea; David R Brown; Benjamin I Chung
Journal:  Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis       Date:  2022-06-21       Impact factor: 5.554

2.  Opioid-Free Discharge is Not Associated With Increased Unplanned Healthcare Encounters After Ureteroscopy: Results From a Statewide Quality Improvement Collaborative.

Authors:  Scott R Hawken; Spencer C Hiller; Stephanie Daignault-Newton; Khurshid R Ghani; John M Hollingsworth; Bronson Conrado; Conrad Maitland; David L Wenzler; John K Ludlow; Sapan N Ambani; Chad M Brummett; Casey A Dauw
Journal:  Urology       Date:  2021-09-01       Impact factor: 2.649

3.  Trends of percutaneous nephrolithotomy in Saudi Arabia.

Authors:  Wissam Khalid Kamal; Ali Alhazmy; Majed Alharthi; Aiman Al Solumany
Journal:  Urol Ann       Date:  2020-10-15

4.  A population-based, retrospective cohort study analyzing contemporary trends in the surgical management of urinary stone disease in adults.

Authors:  Dor Golomb; Sumit Dave; Fernanda Gabrigna Berto; J Andrew McClure; Blayne Welk; Peter Wang; Jennifer Bjazevic; Hassan Razvi
Journal:  Can Urol Assoc J       Date:  2022-04       Impact factor: 2.052

5.  Use of Baidu Index to Track Chinese Online Behavior and Interest in Kidney Stones.

Authors:  Tengteng Wang; Qinghua Xia; Xiude Chen; Xunbo Jin
Journal:  Risk Manag Healthc Policy       Date:  2020-07-03

6.  Does previous open or percutaneous renal stone surgery affect retrograde intrarenal surgery outcomes?

Authors:  Özer Güzel; Can Aykanat; Yılmaz Aslan; Ahmet Asfuroğlu; Melih Balcı; Altuğ Tuncel
Journal:  Turk J Med Sci       Date:  2021-06-28       Impact factor: 0.973

7.  YouTube: A good source for retrograde intrarenal surgery?

Authors:  Senol Tonyali
Journal:  Investig Clin Urol       Date:  2021-03

8.  Comparative evaluation of retrograde intrarenal surgery, antegrade ureterorenoscopy and laparoscopic ureterolithotomy in the treatment of impacted proximal ureteral stones larger than 1.5 cm.

Authors:  Yavuz Güler; Akif Erbin
Journal:  Cent European J Urol       Date:  2021-01-23

9.  Intra-renal pressure and temperature during ureteroscopy: Does it matter?

Authors:  Antonio Corrêa Lopes; Vinícius Dall'Aqua; Raphael V Carrera; Wilson R Molina; Sidney Glina
Journal:  Int Braz J Urol       Date:  2021 Mar-Apr       Impact factor: 1.541

10.  Comparison of Transperitoneal and Retroperitoneal Robotic Partial Nephrectomy for Patients With Complete Upper Pole Renal Tumors.

Authors:  Liangyou Gu; Wenlei Zhao; Junnan Xu; Baojun Wang; Qiang Cheng; Donglai Shen; Yundong Xuan; Xupeng Zhao; Hongzhao Li; Xin Ma; Xu Zhang
Journal:  Front Oncol       Date:  2022-01-25       Impact factor: 6.244

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.