INTRODUCTION: The aim of this article was to investigate quality and cost benefits of managing urolithiasis by primary ureteroscopic procedures (P-URS) during index admission to hospital. With the rise in prevalence of urolithiasis, the focus has shifted to manage these patients during their first admission rather than using temporary measures like emergency stenting (ES) or nephrostomies which are followed by deferred ureteroscopic procedures (D-URS). We compared results of P-URS, D-URS and ES procedures in terms of quality and cost benefits. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Data was collected retrospectively for all P-URS, D-URS and ES procedures performed during year 2019. A total of 85 patients underwent ES while as 138 patients underwent elective URS (26 had P-URS and 112 had D-URS). The quality assessment was based in relation to patient factors including- number of procedures per patient, number of days spent at hospital, number of days off work. Cost analysis included theatre and hospital stay expenses, loss of working days. RESULTS: This study revealed that the average hospital stay of patients on index admission who had a ES was 1.35 days (Total 3.85) and who had P-URS was 1.78 days (Total 2.78). Overall, additional expenditure in patients who did not undergo primary URS was in the range of 1800-2000€ (excluding loss of work for patients, who needed to return for multiple procedures). CONCLUSIONS: We conclude approach of P-URS and management of stones in index admission is very effective in both improving quality of patients as well as bringing down cost expenditure effectively. Copyright by Polish Urological Association.
INTRODUCTION: The aim of this article was to investigate quality and cost benefits of managing urolithiasis by primary ureteroscopic procedures (P-URS) during index admission to hospital. With the rise in prevalence of urolithiasis, the focus has shifted to manage these patients during their first admission rather than using temporary measures like emergency stenting (ES) or nephrostomies which are followed by deferred ureteroscopic procedures (D-URS). We compared results of P-URS, D-URS and ES procedures in terms of quality and cost benefits. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Data was collected retrospectively for all P-URS, D-URS and ES procedures performed during year 2019. A total of 85 patients underwent ES while as 138 patients underwent elective URS (26 had P-URS and 112 had D-URS). The quality assessment was based in relation to patient factors including- number of procedures per patient, number of days spent at hospital, number of days off work. Cost analysis included theatre and hospital stay expenses, loss of working days. RESULTS: This study revealed that the average hospital stay of patients on index admission who had a ES was 1.35 days (Total 3.85) and who had P-URS was 1.78 days (Total 2.78). Overall, additional expenditure in patients who did not undergo primary URS was in the range of 1800-2000€ (excluding loss of work for patients, who needed to return for multiple procedures). CONCLUSIONS: We conclude approach of P-URS and management of stones in index admission is very effective in both improving quality of patients as well as bringing down cost expenditure effectively. Copyright by Polish Urological Association.
Entities:
Keywords:
acute urolithiasis; cost advantages; emergency stenting; primary ureteroscopy; quality of life