Aim: To compare cost-effectiveness, success rates and sat isfaction score of ureteroscopic lithotripsy with lithoclast (URSL) and extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL) for ureteral stones in a Taipei City Hospital. Methods: This is a retrospective study. From July 1998 to June 2000, 448 patients who underwent treatment for ureteral stones were included. The patients were divided into two treatment groups according to the initial method adopted for the management of their stone. Medical records and hospital financial records were collected for costs of implementing each treatment program. The satisfaction scores of patients (rating from 0 to 10) were collected by telephone interviews. Success was defined as complete clearance of the stone or fragmentation of stones smaller than 2 mm by plain abdominal film and complete relief of symptoms after initial treatment. Results: A total of 360 patients were in the ESWL group (including 144 upper, 48 middle and 168 lower third stones) and 88 in the URSL group (including 28 upper, 24 middle and 36 lower third stones). The range of stone size was from 0.6 to 1.9 cm. The overall treatment cost was comparable in both groups with a trend for it to be higher in the ESWL group without reaching statistical significance (TWD 20,901.5 ± 8,911.3 vs. 19,876.1 ± 4,782.2). Stratified by the location of stone, the overall treatment cost was significantly higher in the ESWL group than in the URSL group for patients with upper third ureteral stones irrespective of stone size. The efficiency quotient for ESWL and URSL was 0.62 and 0.65, respectively. The success rate was significantly higher in the URSL group than in the ESWL group (89.8 vs. 71.7%). Satisfaction scores were similar for both groups with a trend to be higher in the ESWL group without reaching statistical significance (7.97 ± 1.01 vs. 7.53 ± 1.37). Conclusions: The overall treatment cost of patients with upper third ureteral stone was significantly higher in the ESWL group than in the URSL group, but the success rate was significantly higher in the URSL group than in the ESWL group.

Keywords:
Cost-effectiveness, Ureteral stone, Extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy, Ureteroscopy
This content is only available via PDF.
© 2009 S. Karger AG, Basel
2009
Copyright / Drug Dosage / Disclaimer
Copyright: All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be translated into other languages, reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, microcopying, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher.
Drug Dosage: The authors and the publisher have exerted every effort to ensure that drug selection and dosage set forth in this text are in accord with current recommendations and practice at the time of publication. However, in view of ongoing research, changes in government regulations, and the constant flow of information relating to drug therapy and drug reactions, the reader is urged to check the package insert for each drug for any changes in indications and dosage and for added warnings and precautions. This is particularly important when the recommended agent is a new and/or infrequently employed drug.
Disclaimer: The statements, opinions and data contained in this publication are solely those of the individual authors and contributors and not of the publishers and the editor(s). The appearance of advertisements or/and product references in the publication is not a warranty, endorsement, or approval of the products or services advertised or of their effectiveness, quality or safety. The publisher and the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to persons or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content or advertisements.
You do not currently have access to this content.