PURPOSE: To investigate the costs of spiral computed tomography (CT) versus those of combined plain radiography and renal ultrasound (US) in screening for postprocedural complications after extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Twenty-five adult patients who had undergone ESWL were prospectively examined with spiral CT, renal US, and plain abdominal radiography. Each examination was timed, and direct technical costs were calculated by using a procedural-based cost-accounting system. The combined cost of US and plain radiography was compared with the cost of spiral CT. RESULTS: The average time for spiral CT was 15.3 minutes compared with 37.2 minutes for combined US and plain radiography. The direct technical cost of spiral CT was $36.86 compared with $57.60 for combined US and plain radiography. Average examination times were varied to assess the effect on overall costs. Within reasonable time ranges, combined US and plain radiography cannot be cost equivalent to spiral CT. CONCLUSION: Spiral CT is faster and is associated with less direct technical cost than combined US and plain radiography when used to examine patients after ESWL, given the dependence of this model on time of examination. Further studies are needed to assess the relative accuracy of these alternative approaches.
PURPOSE: To investigate the costs of spiral computed tomography (CT) versus those of combined plain radiography and renal ultrasound (US) in screening for postprocedural complications after extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Twenty-five adult patients who had undergone ESWL were prospectively examined with spiral CT, renal US, and plain abdominal radiography. Each examination was timed, and direct technical costs were calculated by using a procedural-based cost-accounting system. The combined cost of US and plain radiography was compared with the cost of spiral CT. RESULTS: The average time for spiral CT was 15.3 minutes compared with 37.2 minutes for combined US and plain radiography. The direct technical cost of spiral CT was $36.86 compared with $57.60 for combined US and plain radiography. Average examination times were varied to assess the effect on overall costs. Within reasonable time ranges, combined US and plain radiography cannot be cost equivalent to spiral CT. CONCLUSION: Spiral CT is faster and is associated with less direct technical cost than combined US and plain radiography when used to examine patients after ESWL, given the dependence of this model on time of examination. Further studies are needed to assess the relative accuracy of these alternative approaches.
Authors: Go San Lim; Seok Heun Jang; Jeong Hwan Son; Jae Won Lee; Jae Seung Hwang; Chae Hong Lim; Dae Ji Kim; Dae Sung Cho Journal: Korean J Urol Date: 2014-02-14