Comparing extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy and ureteroscopy for treatment of proximal ureteric calculi: A cost-effectiveness study

Medical Journal of Malaysia

Volumn 64, Issue 1, 2009, Pages 12-21

  Izamin, I ^b   Aniza, Ismail ^a   Rizal, A M ^a   Aljunid, S M ^c  

^a UNIVERSITI KEBANGSAAN MALAYSIA MEDICAL CENTER   (Malaysia)

^b Public Health Physician   (Malaysia)

^c UNIVERSITI KEBANGSAAN MALAYSIA   (Malaysia)

Author keywords

Cost effectiveness analysis; Shock wave lithotripsy; Ureteroscopy, ureteric calculi

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; CONTROLLED STUDY; COST EFFECTIVENESS ANALYSIS; EXTRACORPOREAL LITHOTRIPSY; GENERAL HOSPITAL; HEALTH CARE COST; HUMAN; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; PREOPERATIVE TREATMENT; QUALITY OF LIFE; TREATMENT OUTCOME; URETER STONE; URETEROSCOPY; ADULT; AGED; COMPARATIVE STUDY; COST; COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS; ECONOMICS; FEMALE; HOSPITAL COST; LITHOTRIPSY; MALE; METHODOLOGY; MIDDLE AGED;

ADULT; AGED; COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS; COSTS AND COST ANALYSIS; FEMALE; HOSPITAL COSTS; HUMANS; LITHOTRIPSY; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; URETERAL CALCULI; URETEROSCOPY;

EID: 70449701979     PISSN: 03005283     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Article

References (44)

1. Jewett MAS, Bombardier C, Menchions B. Comparative costs of the various strategies of urinary stone disease management. Urology. 1995; 46: 15-22.
2. Parker BD, Frederick RW, Reilly TP et al. Efficiency and cost of treating proximal ureteral stones: shock wave lithotripsy versus ureteroscopy plus holmium:yttrium-aluminium-garnet laser. Urology. 2004; 64: 1102-06.
3. Grasso M, Massimiliano S. Extracorporeal Shockwave Lithotripsy. eMedicine.com, Inc. (2006) www.topmedconsultants.com/emedicine/Accessed on 9 October 2007.
4. Collins JW, Keeley Jr FX, Timoney A. Cost analysis of flexible ureterorenoscopy. British Journal of Urology. 2003; 93: 1023-26.
5. Painter DJ, Keeley Jr, FX. New concepts in the treatment of ureteral calculi. Current Opinion in Urology. Lippincott William & Wilkins. 2001; 11: 373-78.
6. Lotan Y, Gettman MT, Roehrborn CG et al. Management of ureteral calculi: A cost comparison and decision making analysis. The Journal of Urology. 2002; 167: 1621-29.
7. Pearle MS, Nadler R, Bercowsky E, et al. Prospective randomized trial comparing shock wave lithotripsy and ureteroscopy for management of distal ureteral calculi. The Journal of Urology. 2001; 166: 1255-60
8. Bierkins AF, Hendrix AJM, De La Rosette JJMCH et al. Treatment of mid-and lower ureteric calculi: extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy vs laser ureteroscopy. A comparison of costs, morbidity and effectiveness. British Journal of Urology. 1998; 81(1): 31-35.
9. Galvin DJ, Pearle MS. The contemporary management of renal and ureteric calculi. British Journal of Urology International. 2006; 98: 1283-88.
10. Fordham M. Genitourinary system. In: Majid AA, Kingsnorth AN., eds. Fundamentals of surgical practice. Greenwich Medical Media Ltd. London. 1998; 40: 405-27.
11. Tiselius HG, Ackermann D, Alken P et al. Guidelines on urolithiasis. European Association of Urology. 1999.
12. Papadoukakis S, Stolzenburg JU, Truss MC. Treatment strategies of ureteral stones. European Association of Urology Update Series. 2006; 4: 184-90.
13. Moe OW. Kidney stones: pathophysiology and medical management Lancet. 2006; 367: 333-44.
14. Sienera R, Glatza S, Nicolayb C, et al. Prospective study on the efficacy of a selective treatment and risk factors for relapse in recurrent calcium oxalate stone patients. European Urology. 2003; 44: 467-74.
15. Lotan Y, Pearle M. Economics of stone management. EAU Update Series. 2005; 3; 51-60.
16. Pak CY. Kidney stones. Lancet. 1998; 351: 1797-801.
17. Lim KS, Edward RH, McAll GLG et al. Urinary stones in Kelantan, Malaysia - A two year review. Sing Med J.1988; 29: 353-56.
18. Pak CY, Poindexter JR, Adams-Huet B, Pearle MS. Predictive value of kidney stone composition in the detection of metabolic abnormalities. Am J Med. 2003; 115: 26-32.
19. Pak CY, Sakhaee K, Moe OW. Biochemical profile of stone formation patients with diabetes mellitus. Urology. 2003; 61: 523-27.
20. Gettman MT, Segura JW. Management of ureteric stones: issues and controversies. British Journal of Urology International. 2005; 95(2): 85-93.
21. Wilbert DM. A comparative review of extracorporeal shock wave generation. British Journal of Urology International. 2002; 90: 507-11.
22. Eisenberger, F, Schmidt, A. ESWL and the future of stone management. World J Urol. 1993; 11: 2-6.
23. Beduschi R, Wolf Jr JS. Current treatment of upper third ureteral stones. Braz J Urol.2001; 27: 120-27.
24. Jeon SS, Hyun JH, Lee KS. A comparison of holmium:YAG laser with Lithoclast lithotripsy in ureteral calculi fragmentation. International Journal of Urology. 2005; 12: 544-47.
25. Kirkali, Z. Ureterorenoscopy: A new approach in the diagnosis and treatment of upper urinary tract disorders. International Urology and Nephrology. 1998; 20(2): 105-10.
26. Segura, JW. Editorial comment. In: Parker et al. Efficiency and cost of treating proximal ureteral stones: Shockwave Lithotripsy versus Ureteroscopy plus Holmium:Yttrium-Aluminium-Garnet Laser. Urology. 2004; 64(6): 1106.
27. Drummond MF, O'Brien BJ, Stoddart GL et al. Methods for the economic evaluation of health care programmes. Oxford Medical Publications. Oxford. 1997; 96-138.
28. Walker D. Cost and cost-effectiveness guidelines: which ones to use? Health Policy and Planning. Oxford University Press. 2001; 16(1): 113-121.
29. Ware JJ, Sherbourne CD. The MOS 36-item short-form health survey (SF-36). Conceptual framework and item selection. Medical Care. 1992; 30; 473-83.
30. Jenkinson C, Wright L, Coulter A. Criterion validity and reliability of the SF-36 in a population sample. Quality of Life Research. 1994; 3: 7-12.
31. Brazier JE, Harper R, Jones NMB et al. Validating the SF-36 Health survey questionnaire: new outcome measure for primary care. British Medical Journal. 1992; 305: 160-64.
32. Sararaks S, Azman AB, Low LL et al. Validity and reliability of the SF-36: The Malaysian context. Medical Journal Malaysia. 2005; 60(2): 163-79.
33. Azman AB, Sararaks S, Rugayah B et al. Quality of life of the Malaysian general population results from a postal survey using SF-36. Medical Journal Malaysia. 2003; 58(5): 694-711.
34. Ware Jr. J.E. 2002. SF-36 Health Survey Update. www.sf-36.org/tools/sf36 Assessed on 16 September 2007.
35. Stewart GD, Bariol SV, Moussa SA et al. Matched pair analysis of ureteroscopy vs. shock wave lithotripsy for the treatment of upper ureteric calculi. Int J Clin Pract.2007; 61(5); 784-88.
36. Segura JW, Preminger GM, Assimos DG et al. The Journal of Urology. 1997; 158(5): 1915-21.
37. AUA Annual Meeting: AUA/EAU Guidelines Update: Ureteral Stone Management. Presented on 21 May 2007.
38. Chan KY, Zulkifli MZ, Nazri MJ et al. A Review of Day Care Ureteroscopy of a Teaching Hospital in Malaysia. Med J Malaysia. 2005; 60(1): 5-9.
39. Ware Jr JE, Kosinski M. Interpreting SF-36 Summary Health Measures: A Response. Quality of Life Research. 2001.
40. Getzen TE. Health economics: Fundamentals and flow of funds. John Wiley & Sons, Inc. New York. 1997; 182-98.
41. Byford S, Raftery J. Perspectives in economic evaluation. British Medical Journal. 1998; 316: 1529-30.
42. Briggs AH, Gray AM. Handling uncertainty when performing economic evaluation of healthcare interventions. Health Technology Assessment. 1999; 3(2).
43. Briggs A. Economic evaluation and clinical trials: size matters. British Medical Journal. 2000; 321: 1363-63.
44. Rizal AM, Aljunid SM, Normalina M et al. Cost analysis of cataract surgery with intraocular lens implantation: a single blind randomised clinical trial comparing extracapsular cataract extraction and phacoemulsification. Medical Journal of Malaysia. 2003; 58(3): 380-6.