ABSTRACT
INTRODUCCIÓN: La ureterolitiasis distal (UD) es una patología prevalente. Su tratamiento quirúrgico es con litotricia extracorpórea(LEC) o ureteroscopía (URS), ambas con tasa libre de cálculo (TLC) sobre 90% y mínimas complicaciones. El objetivode este trabajo es comparar la TLC luego de la primera intervención y su costo asociado. Además, comparar el costo totaltratándolos con LEC o URS. PACIENTES Y MÉTODOS: Estudio descriptivo comparativo, que muestra el costo económicode LEC vs URS para tratamiento de UD entre 2009 y 2013. Se incluyeron 107 pacientes; 47 URS y 60 LEC. Se analizaronnúmero de días hospitalizados, necesidad de reintervención y costo total de atención médica. Los costos se ajustaron alvalor actual de la prestación. Se describió la TLC en ambos procedimientos. Se obtuvo el costo total de hospitalizacióny se compararon las variables de interés. RESULTADOS: l tamaño de litiasis fue 8.21mm versus 7.39mm para URS y LEC,respectivamente (p=0.24). Luego de la primera intervención, la TLC fue 97.8% para URS y 80% para LEC (p=0.007). En LEC,12 pacientes requirieron retratamiento elevando la TLC a 95%, (p=0.13). Se instaló catéter JJ en 53.1% y 18.3% para URS yLEC, respectivamente (p<0.001). El costo de honorarios médicos, insumos y derecho a pabellón, es $460.838 para URS y$1.243.075 para LEC. El número de días de hospitalización post procedimiento fue 1.6 y 1.71 días para URS y LEC, respectivamente(p=0.86). En relación con los costos totales, la LEC en promedio, es un 132% más cara respecto a la URS (p<0.001)...
INTRODUCTION: Distal ureterolithiasis (UD) is a common disorder. Its treatment is surgical either with extracorporeal lithotripsy(LEC) or ureteroscopy (URS), both with a stone free (TLC) over 90% and minimal complications. The aim of this studyis to compare the TLC after the rst intervention and its associated cost. Also, compare the total costs of treatment with LECor URS. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A comparative descriptive study, which shows the economic cost of LEC vs UD URS fortreatments performed between 2009 and 2013. 107 patients were included; 47 URS and 60 LEC. Number of hospitalizationdays, reoperation and total cost of care were analyzed. Costs were adjusted to present charges for the same procedures. TLC was described in both proceedings. The total cost of hospitalization was obtained and the variables of interest werecompared. RESULTS: Stone size was 8.21mm versus 7.39mm URS and LEC, respectively (p = 0.24). After the rst intervention,TLC was 97.8% for URS and 80% for LEC (p = 0.007). In LEC, 12 patients required retreatment raising the TLC to 95% (p = 0.13).JJ catheter was installed in 53.1% URS and 18.3% LEC, respectively (p <0.001). The cost of medical supplies, operation roomand physician fees was $460.838 for URS and $1.243.075 for LEC. The number of hospitalization days post procedure was1.6 and 1.71 days for URS and LEC, respectively (p = 0.86). In relation to total costs, LEC is on average, 132% more expensivewhen compared to URS (p <0.001)...
Subject(s)
Humans , Male , Female , Middle Aged , Lithotripsy/economics , Lithotripsy/methods , Ureterolithiasis/surgery , Ureteroscopy/economics , Ureteroscopy/methods , Epidemiology, Descriptive , Length of StayABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION: Management of urolithiasis in morbidly obese patients is usually associated with higher morbidity and mortality compared to non-obese patients. In morbidly obese patients, since the kidney and stone are at a considerable distance from the skin (compared to non-obese patients) difficulty may be found in positioning the patient so that the stone is situated at the focal point of the lithotripter. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the outcomes and cost-efficiency of extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL) in the treatment of renal pelvicalyceal stones sized between 6 and 20 mm in morbidly obese patients. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Using various aids, such as mobile overtable module, extended shock pathway and abdominal compression 37 patients with body mass index more than 40 kg/m2 were treated using the Siemens Lithostar-plus third generation lithotripter. The size of renal pelvicalyceal stones was between 6 and 20 mm. Treatment costs for shock wave lithotripsy were calculated. RESULTS: The overall stone free rate at 3 months of 73 percent was achieved. The mean number of treatments per patient was 2.1. The post-lithotripsy secondary procedures rate was 5.4 percent. No complications, such as subcapsular haematoma or acute pyelonephritis were recorded. The most effective (87 percent success rate) and cost-efficient treatment was in the patients with pelvic stones. The treatment of the patients with low caliceal stones was effective in 60 percent only. The cost of the treatment of the patients with low calyceal stones was in 1.8 times higher than in the patients with pelvic stones. CONCLUSION: We conclude that ESWL with the Siemens Lithostar-plus is the most effective and cost-efficient in morbidly obese patients with pelvic stones sized between 6 and 20 mm. 87 percent success rate was achieved. The increased distance from the skin surface to the stone in those patients does not decrease the success rate provided the stone is positioned in the focal point or within 3 cm of it on the extended shock pathway. ESWL should not be considered as the first line of treatment in the morbidly obese patients with low caliceal stones where the stone was positioned more than 1 cm from the focal point on the extended shock pathway.