Primary Definitive Treatment versus Ureteric Stenting in the Management of Acute Ureteric Colic: A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis

Objectives: To analyze the differences in cost-effectiveness between primary ureteroscopy and ureteric stenting in patients with ureteric calculi in the emergency setting. Patients and Methods: Patients requiring emergency intervention for a ureteric calculus at a tertiary centre were analysed between January and December 2019. The total secondary care cost included the cost of the procedure, inpatient hospital bed days, emergency department (A&E) reattendances, ancillary procedures and any secondary definitive procedure. Results: A total of 244 patients were included. Patients underwent ureteric stenting (62.3%) or primary treatment (37.7%), including primary ureteroscopy (URS) (34%) and shock wave lithotripsy (SWL) (3.6%). The total secondary care cost was more significant in the ureteric stenting group (GBP 4485.42 vs. GBP 3536.83; p = 0.65), though not statistically significant. While mean procedural costs for primary treatment were significantly higher (GBP 2605.27 vs. GBP 1729.00; p < 0.001), costs in addition to the procedure itself were significantly lower (GBP 931.57 vs. GBP 2742.35; p < 0.001) for primary treatment compared to ureteric stenting. Those undergoing ureteric stenting had a significantly higher A&E reattendance rate compared with primary treatment (25.7% vs. 10.9%, p = 0.02) and a significantly greater cost per patient related to revisits to A&E (GBP 61.05 vs. GBP 20.87; p < 0.001). Conclusion: Primary definitive treatment for patients with acute ureteric colic, although associated with higher procedural costs than ureteric stenting, infers a significant reduction in additional expenses, notably related to fewer A&E attendances. This is particularly relevant in the COVID-19 era, where it is crucial to avoid unnecessary attendances to A&E and reduce the backlog of delayed definitive procedures. Primary treatment should be considered concordance with clinical judgement and factors such as patient preference, equipment availability and operator experience.