Cargando…

Contributions to expenditure in endoscopic stone management: a costly process

No comprehensive cost estimates exist for performing ureteropyeloscopy (URS), which is increasingly utilised as a treatment of upper tract urolithiasis in Australia. To estimate expenditure associated with URS in an Australian public hospital setting and determine factors contributing to increased c...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Mondschein, Romy, Bolton, Damien, Tan, Sarah, Vu, Minh Hang, McCahy, Philip
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Springer Berlin Heidelberg 2022
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9468115/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35802151
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00240-022-01344-z
_version_ 1784788341807382528
author Mondschein, Romy
Bolton, Damien
Tan, Sarah
Vu, Minh Hang
McCahy, Philip
author_facet Mondschein, Romy
Bolton, Damien
Tan, Sarah
Vu, Minh Hang
McCahy, Philip
author_sort Mondschein, Romy
collection PubMed
description No comprehensive cost estimates exist for performing ureteropyeloscopy (URS), which is increasingly utilised as a treatment of upper tract urolithiasis in Australia. To estimate expenditure associated with URS in an Australian public hospital setting and determine factors contributing to increased cost. Patients who underwent flexible URS for urolithiasis over a 2-year period at a Victorian public health site were included. Data describing demographics, stone factors, disposable equipment and admission length were retrospectively collected. Procedures were performed using reusable flexible scopes. Previously validated costing models for cystoscopic stent extraction, theatre and recovery per hour and ward admission were used to attach cost to individual episodes. The cost of emergency stent insertion was beyond the scope of this study. 222 patients underwent URS; the combined total number of procedures was 539, comprising 202 stent extractions and 115 stent insertions in addition to 222 URS. Mean procedural cost was $2885 (range $1380–$4900). Mean episode cost excluding emergency stent insertion was $3510 (range $1555–$7140). A combination of flexible scopes, operative time and disposable equipment accounted for nearly 90% of the total procedural cost. Significant cost is associated with URS for treatment of renal and ureteric stones. A large burden of the cost is time in theatre, equipment and the need for multiple associated procedures per episode. Utilising other available treatments such as extracorporeal shockwave therapy (SWL) where appropriate may reduce the financial burden of URS and associated procedures.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-9468115
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2022
publisher Springer Berlin Heidelberg
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-94681152022-09-14 Contributions to expenditure in endoscopic stone management: a costly process Mondschein, Romy Bolton, Damien Tan, Sarah Vu, Minh Hang McCahy, Philip Urolithiasis Original Article No comprehensive cost estimates exist for performing ureteropyeloscopy (URS), which is increasingly utilised as a treatment of upper tract urolithiasis in Australia. To estimate expenditure associated with URS in an Australian public hospital setting and determine factors contributing to increased cost. Patients who underwent flexible URS for urolithiasis over a 2-year period at a Victorian public health site were included. Data describing demographics, stone factors, disposable equipment and admission length were retrospectively collected. Procedures were performed using reusable flexible scopes. Previously validated costing models for cystoscopic stent extraction, theatre and recovery per hour and ward admission were used to attach cost to individual episodes. The cost of emergency stent insertion was beyond the scope of this study. 222 patients underwent URS; the combined total number of procedures was 539, comprising 202 stent extractions and 115 stent insertions in addition to 222 URS. Mean procedural cost was $2885 (range $1380–$4900). Mean episode cost excluding emergency stent insertion was $3510 (range $1555–$7140). A combination of flexible scopes, operative time and disposable equipment accounted for nearly 90% of the total procedural cost. Significant cost is associated with URS for treatment of renal and ureteric stones. A large burden of the cost is time in theatre, equipment and the need for multiple associated procedures per episode. Utilising other available treatments such as extracorporeal shockwave therapy (SWL) where appropriate may reduce the financial burden of URS and associated procedures. Springer Berlin Heidelberg 2022-07-08 2022 /pmc/articles/PMC9468115/ /pubmed/35802151 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00240-022-01344-z Text en © The Author(s) 2022 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) .
spellingShingle Original Article
Mondschein, Romy
Bolton, Damien
Tan, Sarah
Vu, Minh Hang
McCahy, Philip
Contributions to expenditure in endoscopic stone management: a costly process
title Contributions to expenditure in endoscopic stone management: a costly process
title_full Contributions to expenditure in endoscopic stone management: a costly process
title_fullStr Contributions to expenditure in endoscopic stone management: a costly process
title_full_unstemmed Contributions to expenditure in endoscopic stone management: a costly process
title_short Contributions to expenditure in endoscopic stone management: a costly process
title_sort contributions to expenditure in endoscopic stone management: a costly process
topic Original Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9468115/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35802151
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00240-022-01344-z
work_keys_str_mv AT mondscheinromy contributionstoexpenditureinendoscopicstonemanagementacostlyprocess
AT boltondamien contributionstoexpenditureinendoscopicstonemanagementacostlyprocess
AT tansarah contributionstoexpenditureinendoscopicstonemanagementacostlyprocess
AT vuminhhang contributionstoexpenditureinendoscopicstonemanagementacostlyprocess
AT mccahyphilip contributionstoexpenditureinendoscopicstonemanagementacostlyprocess