Literature DB >> 7550267

Cost-effectiveness v patient preference in the choice of treatment for distal ureteral calculi: a literature-based decision analysis.

J S Wolf1, P R Carroll, M L Stoller.   

Abstract

Ureteroscopy (URS) and extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy (SWL) battle for supremacy in the management distal ureteral calculi. In order to clarify issues surrounding this controversy, we created a decision tree modeling URS or SWL with literature-based probabilities and used as endpoints both cost and patient preferences. Ureteroscopy was more successful than single-session or multiple-session SWL, 92.1% v 74.3% or 84.5%, and had a lower retreatment/complication rate. Although initial SWL was only slightly more expensive than URS, $4,420 v $4,337, the difference increased when the additional costs of complications and retreatment were calculated, $6,745 v $5,555. Using values for an "average" patient, SWL was preferred to URS in terms of patient satisfaction. The most important factors distinguishing between URS and SWL were the success of treatment, the cost of initial therapy, and patient attitudes toward unplanned ancillary procedures and retreatment. Although no alteration of success rates and cost figures within reasonable ranges made URS less cost-effective than SWL, individual differences in patients' aversion for complications allowed URS to be preferred to SWL in some situations. Therefore, SWL is less cost-effective than URS and is not necessarily preferred by patients. The physician should be aware of the principal determinants of the choice between URS and SWL treatment of distal ureteral calculi.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1995        PMID: 7550267     DOI: 10.1089/end.1995.9.243

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


  8 in total

1.  Shock wave lithotripsy of urinary calculi with Lithocut C-3000 in a small center.

Authors:  L Daehlin; M Hellang; N M Ulvik
Journal:  Int Urol Nephrol       Date:  1997       Impact factor: 2.370

2.  Socioeconomic evaluation of the treatment of ureteral lithiasis.

Authors:  T Rombi; A Triantafyllidis; A Fotas; T Konstantinidis; S Touloupidis
Journal:  Hippokratia       Date:  2011-07       Impact factor: 0.471

3.  Selecting Treatment for Distal Ureteral Calculi: Shock Wave Lithotripsy versus Ureteroscopy.

Authors:  Ojas D Shah; Brian R Matlaga; Dean G Assimos
Journal:  Rev Urol       Date:  2003

Review 4.  Economic outcomes of treatment for ureteral and renal stones: a systematic literature review.

Authors:  Brian R Matlaga; Jeroen P Jansen; Lisa M Meckley; Thomas W Byrne; James E Lingeman
Journal:  J Urol       Date:  2012-06-13       Impact factor: 7.450

5.  Comparison of Patient Satisfaction with Treatment Outcomes between Ureteroscopy and Shock Wave Lithotripsy for Proximal Ureteral Stones.

Authors:  Jong-Hyun Lee; Seung Hyo Woo; Eun Tak Kim; Dae Kyung Kim; Jinsung Park
Journal:  Korean J Urol       Date:  2010-11-17

6.  Cost-effectiveness comparison of ureteral calculi treated with ureteroscopic laser lithotripsy versus shockwave lithotripsy.

Authors:  Eugene B Cone; Gyan Pareek; Michal Ursiny; Brian Eisner
Journal:  World J Urol       Date:  2016-05-05       Impact factor: 4.226

Review 7.  Economic Considerations in the Management of Nephrolithiasis.

Authors:  Daniel Roberson; Colin Sperling; Ankur Shah; Justin Ziemba
Journal:  Curr Urol Rep       Date:  2020-03-31       Impact factor: 3.092

8.  Should flexible ureteroscope be added to our armamentarium to treat stone disease?

Authors:  Anand Dharaskar; Anil Mandhani
Journal:  Indian J Urol       Date:  2008-10
  8 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.