Cargando…

Ureteroscopy is more cost effective than shock wave lithotripsy for stone treatment: systematic review and meta-analysis

INTRODUCTION: A rising incidence of kidney stone disease has led to an increase in ureteroscopy (URS) and shock wave lithotripsy (SWL). Our aim was to compare the cost of URS and SWL for treatment of stones. METHODS: A systematic review and meta-analysis based on Cochrane and PRISMA standards was co...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Geraghty, Robert M., Jones, Patrick, Herrmann, Thomas R. W., Aboumarzouk, Omar, Somani, Bhaskar K.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Springer Berlin Heidelberg 2018
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6208679/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29730839
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00345-018-2320-9
_version_ 1783366750711054336
author Geraghty, Robert M.
Jones, Patrick
Herrmann, Thomas R. W.
Aboumarzouk, Omar
Somani, Bhaskar K.
author_facet Geraghty, Robert M.
Jones, Patrick
Herrmann, Thomas R. W.
Aboumarzouk, Omar
Somani, Bhaskar K.
author_sort Geraghty, Robert M.
collection PubMed
description INTRODUCTION: A rising incidence of kidney stone disease has led to an increase in ureteroscopy (URS) and shock wave lithotripsy (SWL). Our aim was to compare the cost of URS and SWL for treatment of stones. METHODS: A systematic review and meta-analysis based on Cochrane and PRISMA standards was conducted for all studies reporting on comparative cost of treatment between URS and SWL. The cost calculation was based on factual data presented in the individual studies as reported by the authors. English language articles from January 2001 to December 2017 using Medline, PubMed, EMBASE, CINAHL, Cochrane library and Google Scholar were selected. Our study was registered with PROSPERO (International prospective register of systematic reviews)—registration number CRD 42017080350. RESULTS: A total of 12 studies involving 2012 patients (SWL-1243, URS-769) were included after initial identification and screening of 725 studies with further assessment of 27 papers. The mean stone size was 10 and 11 mm for SWL and URS, respectively, with stone location in the proximal ureter (n = 8 studies), distal ureter (n = 1), all locations in the ureter (n = 1) and in the kidney (n = 2). Stone free rates (84 vs. 60%) were favourable for URS compared to SWL (p < 0.001). Complication rates (23 vs. 30%) were non-significantly in favor of SWL (p = 0.11) whereas re-treatment rates (11 vs. 27%) were non-significantly in favor of URS (p = 0.29). Mean overall cost was significantly lower for URS ($2801) compared to SWL ($3627) (p = 0.03). The included studies had high risk of bias overall. On sub-analysis, URS was significantly cost-effective for both stones  < 10 and  ≥ 10 mm and for proximal ureteric stones. CONCLUSION: There is limited evidence to suggest that URS is less expensive than SWL. However, due to lack of standardization, studies seem to be contradictory and further randomized studies are needed to address this issue.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-6208679
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2018
publisher Springer Berlin Heidelberg
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-62086792018-11-09 Ureteroscopy is more cost effective than shock wave lithotripsy for stone treatment: systematic review and meta-analysis Geraghty, Robert M. Jones, Patrick Herrmann, Thomas R. W. Aboumarzouk, Omar Somani, Bhaskar K. World J Urol Invited Review INTRODUCTION: A rising incidence of kidney stone disease has led to an increase in ureteroscopy (URS) and shock wave lithotripsy (SWL). Our aim was to compare the cost of URS and SWL for treatment of stones. METHODS: A systematic review and meta-analysis based on Cochrane and PRISMA standards was conducted for all studies reporting on comparative cost of treatment between URS and SWL. The cost calculation was based on factual data presented in the individual studies as reported by the authors. English language articles from January 2001 to December 2017 using Medline, PubMed, EMBASE, CINAHL, Cochrane library and Google Scholar were selected. Our study was registered with PROSPERO (International prospective register of systematic reviews)—registration number CRD 42017080350. RESULTS: A total of 12 studies involving 2012 patients (SWL-1243, URS-769) were included after initial identification and screening of 725 studies with further assessment of 27 papers. The mean stone size was 10 and 11 mm for SWL and URS, respectively, with stone location in the proximal ureter (n = 8 studies), distal ureter (n = 1), all locations in the ureter (n = 1) and in the kidney (n = 2). Stone free rates (84 vs. 60%) were favourable for URS compared to SWL (p < 0.001). Complication rates (23 vs. 30%) were non-significantly in favor of SWL (p = 0.11) whereas re-treatment rates (11 vs. 27%) were non-significantly in favor of URS (p = 0.29). Mean overall cost was significantly lower for URS ($2801) compared to SWL ($3627) (p = 0.03). The included studies had high risk of bias overall. On sub-analysis, URS was significantly cost-effective for both stones  < 10 and  ≥ 10 mm and for proximal ureteric stones. CONCLUSION: There is limited evidence to suggest that URS is less expensive than SWL. However, due to lack of standardization, studies seem to be contradictory and further randomized studies are needed to address this issue. Springer Berlin Heidelberg 2018-05-05 2018 /pmc/articles/PMC6208679/ /pubmed/29730839 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00345-018-2320-9 Text en © The Author(s) 2018 Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made.
spellingShingle Invited Review
Geraghty, Robert M.
Jones, Patrick
Herrmann, Thomas R. W.
Aboumarzouk, Omar
Somani, Bhaskar K.
Ureteroscopy is more cost effective than shock wave lithotripsy for stone treatment: systematic review and meta-analysis
title Ureteroscopy is more cost effective than shock wave lithotripsy for stone treatment: systematic review and meta-analysis
title_full Ureteroscopy is more cost effective than shock wave lithotripsy for stone treatment: systematic review and meta-analysis
title_fullStr Ureteroscopy is more cost effective than shock wave lithotripsy for stone treatment: systematic review and meta-analysis
title_full_unstemmed Ureteroscopy is more cost effective than shock wave lithotripsy for stone treatment: systematic review and meta-analysis
title_short Ureteroscopy is more cost effective than shock wave lithotripsy for stone treatment: systematic review and meta-analysis
title_sort ureteroscopy is more cost effective than shock wave lithotripsy for stone treatment: systematic review and meta-analysis
topic Invited Review
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6208679/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29730839
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00345-018-2320-9
work_keys_str_mv AT geraghtyrobertm ureteroscopyismorecosteffectivethanshockwavelithotripsyforstonetreatmentsystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT jonespatrick ureteroscopyismorecosteffectivethanshockwavelithotripsyforstonetreatmentsystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT herrmannthomasrw ureteroscopyismorecosteffectivethanshockwavelithotripsyforstonetreatmentsystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT aboumarzoukomar ureteroscopyismorecosteffectivethanshockwavelithotripsyforstonetreatmentsystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT somanibhaskark ureteroscopyismorecosteffectivethanshockwavelithotripsyforstonetreatmentsystematicreviewandmetaanalysis