Does transurethral laser ureterolithotripsy justify its cost?
A prospective consecutive series of 64 patients who underwent transurethral laser ureterolithotripsy using a 7.2F semirigid ureteroscope was compared to the immediately preceding consecutive series of 98 patients who had undergone ultrasound lithotripsy using rigid 9.5F or 12.5F ureteroscopes. The distribution of the calculi by size and composition in both series was similar. There was a higher proportion of upper ureteral calculi in the laser lithotripsy series. The success rate for a first attempt at laser lithotripsy was 92.2% versus 71.4% for the ultrasound series (p less than 0.01). When the stone could be reached ultrasound and laser lithotripsy had a fragmentation rate of 97%. The principal reason for the difference in results was the poorer ability to reach calculi when using the larger rigid ureteroscopes. One patient who had failed ultrasound lithotripsy was successfully treated with laser lithotripsy a year later. The overall morbidity was less for laser lithotripsy. The 3-year cost-benefit analysis revealed a smaller difference in cost than expected and the 5-year analysis was advantageous for laser lithotripsy because of its higher success rate. Savings were also realized in the laser series because of the higher proportion of subjects treated as outpatients, and a lower mean duration of hospitalization and time missed from work. For our center with an annual work load of approximately 100 cases laser lithotripsy achieved a superior cost-benefit ratio.
Esuvaranathan
K
K
Department of Surgery, National University Hospital, Singapore.
Tan
E C
EC
Tan
P K
PK
Tung
K H
KH
D003362:Cost-Benefit Analysis; D005500:Follow-Up Studies; D006801:Humans; D053685:Laser Therapy; D007834:Lasers / Q000009:adverse effects; D008096:Lithotripsy / Q000191:economics* / Q000295:instrumentation / Q000379:methods*; D017602:Lithotripsy, Laser; D011446:Prospective Studies; D014521:Urethra; D014545:Urinary Calculi / Q000628:therapy*