Skip to main content
Log in

Comparison of flexible ureteroscopy and micropercutaneous nephrolithotomy in terms of cost-effectiveness: analysis of 111 procedures

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Urolithiasis Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The objective of this study was to audit the costs of retrograde intrarenal surgery (RIRS) and micropercutaneous nephrolithotomy (microperc) and compare them in terms of cost-effectiveness. We performed a retrospective analysis of 63 patients who underwent microperc and 48 patients who underwent RIRS. The cases, performed between first use and first repair, were used for this initial study. The costs associated with performing RIRS and microperc, including the costs of devices, disposables, hospitalization, and additional required treatments, were audited. The main perioperative and postoperative parameters were collected, including operation time, JJ stent requirements, used disposables, stone-free rates, and complications. Statistical analyses of the means of continuous variables were performed using Student’s t test and the Mann–Whitney U test. Categorical variables were analyzed using Chi-squared tests. The mean cost of RIRS was $917.13 ± 73.62 and the mean cost of microperc was $831.58 ± 79.51; this difference was statistically significant (p < 0.001). The mean operation time of the RIRS group was significantly shorter than the microperc group (55.62 ± 19.62 min and 98.50 ± 29.64 min, respectively, p < 0.001). The assessment of required additional treatment showed that it was significantly higher in the RIRS group than the microperc group (p = 0.02). The stone-free rate for RIRS was 66.6 and 80.9 % for microperc; this difference was not statistically significant (p = 0.12). In our series, the use of microperc is less expensive than RIRS due to additional required treatments and ancillary equipment in RIRS. RIRS is more effective than microperc in terms of operation time and more effective use of operation rooms.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Kijvikai K, Haleblian GE, Preminger GM, de la Rosette J (2007) Shock wave lithotripsy or ureteroscopy for the management of proximal ureteral calculi: an old discussion revisited. J Urol 178:1157–1163

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Matlaga BR (2009) Contemporary surgical management of upper urinary tract calculi. J Urol 181:2152–2156

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. EAU guidelines on urolithiasis (2013) http://www.uroweb.org/guidelines/online-guidelines/?no_cache=1. Accessed 17 Jan 2015

  4. Tepeler A, Sarica K (2013) Standard, mini, ultra-mini, and micro percutaneous nephrolithotomy: what is next? A novel labeling system for percutaneous nephrolithotomy according to the size of the access sheath used during procedure. Urolithiasis 41:367–368

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Cape JD, Beca JM, Hoch JS (2013) Introduction to Cost-Effectiveness Analysis for Clinicians. Univ Toronto Med J 90:103–105

    Google Scholar 

  6. Goodwin WE, Casey WC, Woolf W (1955) Percutaneous trocar (needle) nephrostomy in hydronephrosis. J Am Med Assoc 157:891–894

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Fernström I, Johansson B (1976) Percutaneous pyelolithotomy. A new extraction technique. Scand J Urol Nephrol 10:257–259

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Michel MS, Trojan L, Rassweiler JJ (2007) Complications in percutaneous nephrolithotomy. Eur Urol 51:899–906 (discussion 906)

  9. Kukreja R, Desai M, Patel S et al (2004) Factors affecting blood loss during percutaneous nephrolithotomy: prospective study. J Endourol 18:715–722

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Karadag MA, Demir A, Cecen K et al (2014) Flexible ureterorenoscopy versus semirigid ureteroscopy for the treatment of proximal ureteral stones: a retrospective comparative analysis of 124 patients. Urol J 11:1867–1872

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. De la Rosette J, Denstedt J, Geavlete P et al (2014) The clinical research office of the endourological society ureteroscopy global study: indications, complications, and outcomes in 11,885 patients. J Endourol 28:131–139

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Bader MJ, Gratzke C, Seitz M et al (2011) The “all-seeing needle”: initial results of an optical puncture system confirming access in percutaneous nephrolithotomy. Eur Urol 59:1054–1059

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Gurbuz C, Atış G, Arikan O et al (2014) The cost analysis of flexible ureteroscopic lithotripsy in 302 cases. Urolithiasis 42:155–158

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Sabnis RB, Ganesamoni R, Doshi A et al (2013) Micropercutaneous nephrolithotomy (microperc) vs retrograde intrarenal surgery for the management of small renal calculi: a randomized controlled trial. BJU Int 112:355–361

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Ramón de Fata F, García-Tello A, Andrés G et al (2014) Comparative study of retrograde intrarenal surgery and micropercutaneous nephrolithotomy in the treatment of intermediate-sized kidney stones. Actas Urol Esp 38:576–583

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Demir A, Karadağ MA, Ceçen K et al (2014) Pneumatic versus laser ureteroscopic lithotripsy: a comparison of initial outcomes and cost. Int Urol Nephrol 46:2087–2093

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Hatipoglu NK, Tepeler A, Buldu I et al (2014) Initial experience of micro-percutaneous nephrolithotomy in the treatment of renal calculi in 140 renal units. Urolithiasis 42:159–164

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Tepeler A, Armagan A, Sancaktutar AA et al (2013) The role of microperc in the treatment of symptomatic lower pole renal calculi. J Endourol 27:13–18

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Murat Bagcioglu.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

In this study, there are no potential or actual competing interests.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Bagcioglu, M., Demir, A., Sulhan, H. et al. Comparison of flexible ureteroscopy and micropercutaneous nephrolithotomy in terms of cost-effectiveness: analysis of 111 procedures. Urolithiasis 44, 339–344 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00240-015-0828-7

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00240-015-0828-7

Keywords

Navigation