Cost-effectiveness and efficiency of shockwave lithotripsy vs flexible ureteroscopic holmium:yttrium-aluminium-garnet laser lithotripsy in the treatment of lower pole renal calculi

BJU International

Volumn 108, Issue 11, 2011, Pages 1913-1916

  Koo, Vincent ^a   Young, Michael ^a   Thompson, Trevor ^b   Duggan, Brian ^b  

^a CRAIGAVON AREA HOSPITAL   (United Kingdom)

^b BELFAST CITY HOSPITAL   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

cost effectiveness; Dornier S lithotripter; extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy; flexible ureteroscopy; lasertripsy; lower pole renal calculi

Indexed keywords

ADULT; ARTICLE; CLINICAL EFFECTIVENESS; CONTROLLED STUDY; COST EFFECTIVENESS ANALYSIS; EXTRACORPOREAL LITHOTRIPSY; FEMALE; HOLMIUM LASER; HUMAN; INTERMETHOD COMPARISON; LASER LITHOTRIPSY; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; NEPHROLITHIASIS; PAIN; PRIORITY JOURNAL; SEPSIS; TREATMENT FAILURE; TREATMENT OUTCOME; URETEROSCOPY; URINARY TRACT OBSTRUCTION;

ADULT; AGED; COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS; FEMALE; HUMANS; KIDNEY CALCULI; LASERS, SOLID-STATE; LITHOTRIPSY; LITHOTRIPSY, LASER; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; RETREATMENT; RETROSPECTIVE STUDIES; TREATMENT OUTCOME; URETEROSCOPY;

EID: 81255134324     PISSN: 14644096     EISSN: 1464410X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1464-410X.2011.10172.x     Document Type: Article

References (11)

1. Chandhoke PS,. When is medical prophylaxis cost-effective for recurrent calcium stones? J Urol 2002; 168: 937-40
2. Pearle MS, Lingeman JE, Leveillee R, et al,. Prospective, randomized trial comparing shock wave lithotripsy and ureteroscopy for lower pole caliceal calculi 1 cm or less. J Urol 2005; 173: 2005-9 (Pubitemid 40675228)
3. Koo V, Beattie I, Young M,. Improved cost-effectiveness and efficiency with a slower shockwave delivery rate. BJU Int 2010; 105: 692-6
4. Collins JW, Keeley FX Jr, Timoney A,. Cost analysis of flexible ureterorenoscopy. BJU Int 2004; 93: 1023-6 (Pubitemid 38758627)
5. Afane JS, Olweny EO, Bercowsky E, et al,. Flexible ureteroscopes: a single center evaluation of the durability and function of the new endoscopes smaller than 9Fr. J Urol 2000; 164: 1164-8
6. Monga M, Best S, Venkatesh R, et al,. Durability of flexible ureteroscopes: a randomized, prospective study. J Urol 2006; 176: 137-41 (Pubitemid 43833177)
7. Knudsen B, Miyaoka R, Shah K, et al,. Durability of the next-generation flexible fiberoptic ureteroscopes: a randomized prospective multi-institutional clinical trial. Urology 2010; 75: 534-8
8. Beck EM, Riehle RA Jr,. The fate of residual fragments after extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy monotherapy of infection stones. J Urol 1991; 145: 6-9
9. Yu CC, Lee YH, Huang JK, et al,. Long-term stone regrowth and recurrence rates after extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy. Br J Urol 1993; 72: 688-91 (Pubitemid 24000122)
10. Khaitan A, Gupta NP, Hemal AK, Dogra PN, Seth A, Aron M,. Post-ESWL, clinically insignificant residual stones: reality or myth? Urology 2002; 59: 20-4 (Pubitemid 34059299)
11. Robertson WG,. Is prevention of stone recurrence financially worthwhile? Urol Res 2006; 34: 157-61