A comprehensive literature-based equation to compare cost-effectiveness of a flexible ureteroscopy program with single-use versus reusable devices

ABSTRACT Purpose to critically review all literature concerning the cost-effectiveness of flexible ureteroscopy comparing single-use with reusable scopes. Materials and Methods A systematic online literature review was performed in PubMed, Embase and Google Scholar databases. All factors potentially affecting surgical costs or clinical outcomes were considered. Prospective assessments, case control and case series studies were included. Results 741 studies were found. Of those, 18 were duplicated and 77 were not related to urology procedures. Of the remaining 646 studies, 59 were considered of relevance and selected for further analysis. Stone free and complication rates were similar between single-use and reusable scopes. Operative time was in average 20% shorter with digital scopes, single-use or not. Reusable digital scopes seem to last longer than optic ones, though scope longevity is very variable worldwide. New scopes usually last four times more than refurbished ones and single-use ureterorenoscopes have good resilience throughout long cases. Longer scope longevity is achieved with Cidex and if a dedicated nurse takes care of the sterilization process. The main surgical factors that negatively impact device longevity are lower pole pathologies, large stone burden and non-use of a ureteral access sheath. We have built a comprehensive financial cost-effective decision model to flexible ureteroscope acquisition. Conclusions The cost-effectiveness of a flexible ureteroscopy program is dependent of several aspects. We have developed a equation to allow a literature-based and adaptable decision model to every interested stakeholder. Disposable devices are already a reality and will progressively become the standard as manufacturing price falls.

Litotricia extracorpórea versus ureterolitectomía endoscópica para el manejo de litiasis de uréter distal. Costos asociados. Experiencia del Hospital Militar de Santiago / Extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy versus endoscopic ureterolithectomy for management of distal ureteral stones. Associated costs. Experience the Military Hospital of Santiago

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)...

Outcomes of flexible ureteroscopic lithotripsy with holmium laser for upper urinary tract calculi

OBJECTIVE: To assess the perioperative and financial outcomes of flexible ureteroscopic lithotripsy with holmium laser for upper tract calculi in 44 patients. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Between February 2004 and September 2006, 44 patients treated for upper tract stone with flexible ureteroscopic lithotripsy were evaluated. Renal stones were associated with collecting system obstruction in 15 (34 percent) patients, failed extracorporeal shock-wave lithotripsy (SWL) occurred in 14 (32 percent) patients, unilateral multiple stones in 18 (41 percent) patients, and multiple bilateral stones in 3 (7 percent). In 29 (66 percent) patients, the stone was located in the inferior calyx. Perioperative and financial outcomes were also evaluated. RESULTS: 50 procedures were performed in 44 patients. The mean stone burden on preoperative CT scan was 11.5 ± 5.8 mm. The mean operative time was 61.3 ± 29.4 min. The stone free rate was 93.1 percent after one procedure and 97.7 percent after a second procedure, with overall complication rate of 8 percent. Therapeutic success occurred in 92 percent and 93 percent of patients with lower pole stones and SWL failure, respectively. Treatment failure of a single session was associated with presence of a stone size larger than 15 mm (p = 0.007), but not associated with inferior calyx location (p = 0.09). Surgical disposables were responsible for 78 percent of overall costs. CONCLUSION: Flexible ureteroscopy using holmium laser is a safe and effective option for the treatment of upper urinary tract calculi. In addition, it can be considered an attractive option as salvage therapy after SWL failure or kidney calculi associated with ureteral stones. Stone size larger than 15 mm is associated with single session treatment failure.