Skip to main content
Hauptrubriken
CME Facharzt-Training Webinare Zeitschriften Bücher e.Medpedia Podcast
Service
Jobbörse Info & Hilfe
Fachgebiete
Anästhesiologie Allgemeinmedizin Arbeitsmedizin Augenheilkunde Chirurgie Dermatologie Gynäkologie und Geburtshilfe HNO Innere Medizin Kardiologie Neurologie Onkologie und Hämatologie Orthopädie und Unfallchirurgie Pädiatrie Pathologie Psychiatrie Radiologie Rechtsmedizin Urologie Zahnmedizin
Themen
Typ-2-Diabetes und Adipositas Klimawandel und Gesundheit Neues aus dem Markt COVID-19 Praxis und Beruf Seltene Erkrankungen GOÄ & EBM Panorama
Sammlungen
Kasuistiken Algorithmen & Infografiken Blickdiagnosen Arthropedia FlapFinder (für Dermatochirurgen) Videos Kongressberichterstattung Medizin für Apothekerinnen und Apotheker Für Ärztinnen und Ärzte in Weiterbildung Für Medizinstudierende

Live-Webinar "Urologie und Sexualmedizin in der Praxis"

Häufige urologisch-sexualmedizinische Themen in der Praxis sind das Thema des MMW-Webinars am 5. Juni von 17.30 bis 19 Uhr. Konkret geht es um die Frage, wann bei Harnwegsinfektionen auf Antibiotika verzichtet werden kann, und um ein Update zur Therapie von Libido- und Potenzstörungen des Mannes. Der dritte Vortrag behandelt sexuell übertragbare Krankheiten. Stellen Sie Ihre Fragen an die Experten und sammeln Sie 2 CME-Punkte. Jetzt gleich anmelden!
Erweiterte Suche
Anmelden
nach oben
Current Urology Reports
Erschienen in: Current Urology Reports 5/2020

01.05.2020 | Kidney Diseases (G Ciancio, Section Editor)

Economic Considerations in the Management of Nephrolithiasis

verfasst von: Daniel Roberson, Colin Sperling, Ankur Shah, Justin Ziemba

Erschienen in: Current Urology Reports | Ausgabe 5/2020

Einloggen, um Zugang zu erhalten

Abstract

Purpose of Review

From health systems to individuals, nephrolithiasis is economically burdensome. The aim of the current paper is to characterize the financial burden of disease associated with nephrolithiasis with an emphasis on investigating treatment modality economic efficiency.

Recent Findings

For small volume practices and cases where there is high risk of scope damage, disposable flexible ureteroscope utilization seems to provide economic efficiency.

Summary

The rise in global prevalence of stone disease is a large contributing factor to increasing costs associated with nephrolithiasis. A large proportion of costs from kidney stones stem from ED visits and inpatient care. There are opportunities to save money by transitioning care to outpatient settings in scenarios that allow such transition. Metaphylaxis and prevention strategies are effective at lowering costs in properly selected patient populations. Flexible ureteroscopy and percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL) are the most economically efficient methods of surgically treating stone disease, with PCNL being reserved for large and lower pole stones. Time off work and other indirect costs, while challenging to quantify, are important considerations in the economics of nephrolithiasis.
Literatur
1.
Pearle MS, Calhoun EA, Curhan GC. Urologic Diseases of America P. Urologic diseases in America project: urolithiasis. J Urol. 2005;173(3):848–57.PubMed
2.
Kelly C, Geraghty RM, Somani BK. Nephrolithiasis in the obese patient. Curr Urol Rep. 2019;20(7):36.PubMed
3.
Clark JY. Renal calculi in army aviators. Aviat Space Environ Med. 1990;61(8):744–7.PubMed
4.
Bansal AD, Hui J, Goldfarb DS. Asymptomatic nephrolithiasis detected by ultrasound. Clin J Am Soc Nephrol. 2009;4(3):680–4.PubMedPubMedCentral
5.
Boyce CJ, Pickhardt PJ, Lawrence EM, Kim DH, Bruce RJ. Prevalence of urolithiasis in asymptomatic adults: objective determination using low dose noncontrast computerized tomography. J Urol. 2010;183(3):1017–21.PubMed
6.
7.
Scales CD Jr, Smith AC, Hanley JM, Saigal CS. Urologic Diseases in America P. Prevalence of kidney stones in the United States. Eur Urol. 2012;62(1):160–5.PubMedPubMedCentral
8.
Tasian GE, Ross ME, Song L, Sas DJ, Keren R, Denburg MR, et al. Annual incidence of nephrolithiasis among children and adults in South Carolina from 1997 to 2012. Clin J Am Soc Nephrol. 2016;11(3):488–96.PubMedPubMedCentral
9.
•• Kittanamongkolchai W, Vaughan LE, Enders FT, Dhondup T, Mehta RA, Krambeck AE, et al. The changing incidence and presentation of urinary stones over 3 decades. Mayo Clin Proc. 2018;93(3):291–9. Highlights important, contemporary epidemiological trends in stone disease. PubMedPubMedCentral
10.
Balthazar P, Sadigh G, Hughes D, Rosenkrantz AB, Hanna T, Duszak R Jr. Increasing use, geographic variation, and disparities in emergency department CT for suspected urolithiasis. J Am Coll Radiol. 2019;16(11):1547–53.PubMed
11.
Luckenbaugh AN, Yan PL, Dauw CA, Ghani KR, Hollenbeck BK, Hollingsworth JM. Followup care after emergency department visits for kidney stones: a missed opportunity. Urol Pract. 2019;6(1):24–8.PubMed
12.
Scales CD Jr, Lin L, Saigal CS, Bennett CJ, Ponce NA, Mangione CM, et al. Emergency department revisits for patients with kidney stones in California. Acad Emerg Med. 2015;22(4):468–74.PubMedPubMedCentral
13.
Fan B, Yang D, Wang J, Che X, Li X, Wang L, et al. Can tamsulosin facilitate expulsion of ureteral stones? A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Int J Urol. 2013;20(8):818–30.PubMed
14.
Bensalah K, Pearle M, Lotan Y. Cost-effectiveness of medical expulsive therapy using alpha-blockers for the treatment of distal ureteral stones. Eur Urol. 2008;53(2):411–8.PubMed
15.
Hollingsworth JM, Norton EC, Kaufman SR, Smith RM, Wolf JS Jr, Hollenbeck BK. Medical expulsive therapy versus early endoscopic stone removal for acute renal colic: an instrumental variable analysis. J Urol. 2013;190(3):882–7.PubMed
16.
Lotan Y, Pearle MS. Cost-effectiveness of primary prevention strategies for nephrolithiasis. J Urol. 2011;186(2):550–5.PubMed
17.
Lotan Y, Buendia Jimenez I, Lenoir-Wijnkoop I, Daudon M, Molinier L, Tack I, et al. Primary prevention of nephrolithiasis is cost-effective for a national healthcare system. BJU Int. 2012;110(11 Pt C):E1060–7.PubMed
18.
Lotan Y. Economics and cost of care of stone disease. Adv Chronic Kidney Dis. 2009;16(1):5–10.PubMed
19.
Pearle MS, Goldfarb DS, Assimos DG, Curhan G, Denu-Ciocca CJ, Matlaga BR, et al. Medical management of kidney stones: AUA guideline. J Urol. 2014;192(2):316–24.PubMed
20.
Chandhoke PS. When is medical prophylaxis cost-effective for recurrent calcium stones? J Urol. 2002;168(3):937–40.PubMed
21.
Lotan Y, Cadeddu JA, Roerhborn CG, Pak CY, Pearle MS. Cost-effectiveness of medical management strategies for nephrolithiasis. J Urol. 2004;172(6 Pt 1):2275–81.PubMed
22.
Lotan Y, Cadeddu JA, Pearle MS. International comparison of cost effectiveness of medical management strategies for nephrolithiasis. Urol Res. 2005;33(3):223–30.PubMed
23.
Strohmaier WL. Economic aspects of evidence-based metaphylaxis. Urol A. 2006;45(11):1406–9.
24.
Strohmaier WL. Socioeconomic aspects of urinary calculi and metaphylaxis of urinary calculi. Urol A. 2000;39(2):166–70.
25.
26.
Borghi L, Schianchi T, Meschi T, Guerra A, Allegri F, Maggiore U, et al. Comparison of two diets for the prevention of recurrent stones in idiopathic hypercalciuria. N Engl J Med. 2002;346(2):77–84.PubMed
27.
Taylor EN, Fung TT, Curhan GC. DASH-style diet associates with reduced risk for kidney stones. J Am Soc Nephrol. 2009;20(10):2253–9.PubMedPubMedCentral
28.
Pauly MV, Burns LR. Price transparency for medical devices. Health Aff (Millwood). 2008;27(6):1544–53.
29.
Robinson JC. Value-based purchasing for medical devices. Health Aff (Millwood). 2008;27(6):1523–31.
30.
Landman J, Lee DI, Lee C, Monga M. Evaluation of overall costs of currently available small flexible ureteroscopes. Urology. 2003;62(2):218–22.PubMed
31.
Collins JW, Keeley FX Jr, Timoney A. Cost analysis of flexible ureterorenoscopy. BJU Int. 2004;93(7):1023–6.PubMed
32.
Gurbuz C, Atis G, Arikan O, Efilioglu O, Yildirim A, Danacioglu O, et al. The cost analysis of flexible ureteroscopic lithotripsy in 302 cases. Urolithiasis. 2014;42(2):155–8.PubMed
33.
Somani BK, Robertson A, Kata SG. Decreasing the cost of flexible ureterorenoscopic procedures. Urology. 2011;78(3):528–30.PubMed
34.
User HM, Hua V, Blunt LW, Wambi C, Gonzalez CM, Nadler RB. Performance and durability of leading flexible ureteroscopes. J Endourol. 2004;18(8):735–8.PubMed
35.
Antonelli JA. Innovations in surgical stone disease. Curr Opin Urol. 2016;26(3):240–7.PubMed
36.
Isaacson D, Ahmad T, Metzler I, Tzou DT, Taguchi K, Usawachintachit M, et al. Defining the costs of reusable flexible ureteroscope reprocessing using time-driven activity-based costing. J Endourol. 2017;31(10):1026–31.PubMedPubMedCentral
37.
Kramolowsky E, McDowell Z, Moore B, Booth B, Wood N. Cost analysis of flexible ureteroscope repairs: evaluation of 655 procedures in a community-based practice. J Endourol. 2016;30(3):254–6.PubMed
38.
Tosoian JJ, Ludwig W, Sopko N, Mullins JK, Matlaga BR. The effect of repair costs on the profitability of a ureteroscopy program. J Endourol. 2015;29(4):406–9.PubMed
39.
Sung JC, Springhart WP, Marguet CG, L'Esperance JO, Tan YH, Albala DM, et al. Location and etiology of flexible and semirigid ureteroscope damage. Urology. 2005;66(5):958–63.PubMed
40.
Monga M, Best S, Venkatesh R, Ames C, Lee C, Kuskowski M, et al. Durability of flexible ureteroscopes: a randomized, prospective study. J Urol. 2006;176(1):137–41.PubMed
41.
Carey RI, Gomez CS, Maurici G, Lynne CM, Leveillee RJ, Bird VG. Frequency of ureteroscope damage seen at a tertiary care center. J Urol. 2006;176(2):607–10 discussion 10.PubMed
42.
Defidio L, De Dominicis M, Di Gianfrancesco L, Fuchs G, Patel A. Improving flexible ureterorenoscope durability up to 100 procedures. J Endourol. 2012;26(10):1329–34.PubMed
43.
Multescu R, Geavlete B, Georgescu D, Geavlete P. Improved durability of flex-Xc digital flexible ureteroscope: how long can you expect it to last? Urology. 2014;84(1):32–5.PubMed
44.
•• Martin CJ, SB MA, Abdul-Muhsin H, Lim VM, Nunez-Nateras R, Tyson MD, et al. The economic implications of a reusable flexible digital ureteroscope: a cost-benefit analysis. J Urol. 2017;197(3 Pt 1):730–5. Disposable flexible ureteroscopes are most economically beneficial at centers with low case volume, yet are valuable in high volume centers when cases pose a high risk of damage to the scope. PubMed
45.
• Hennessey DB, Fojecki GL, Papa NP, Lawrentschuk N, Bolton D. Single-use disposable digital flexible ureteroscopes: an ex vivo assessment and cost analysis. BJU Int. 2018;121(Suppl 3):55–61. The LithoVue disposable ureteroscope device is equivalent to reusable ureteroscopes by technical standards and purchase price is the most important determinant of the economic benefit of disposable scopes. PubMed
46.
Ozimek T, Schneider MH, Hupe MC, Wiessmeyer JR, Cordes J, Chlosta PL, et al. Retrospective cost analysis of a single-center reusable flexible ureterorenoscopy program: a comparative cost simulation of disposable fURS as an alternative. J Endourol. 2017;31(12):1226–30.PubMed
47.
• Taguchi K, Usawachintachit M, Tzou DT, Sherer BA, Metzler I, Isaacson D, et al. Micro-costing analysis demonstrates comparable costs for LithoVue compared to reusable flexible fiberoptic ureteroscopes. J Endourol. 2018;32(4):267–73. Acquisition costs of disposable ureteroscopes are higher, yet savings are realized in the areas of maintenance, labor, and consumables. The cost per case of using a disposable and a reusable ureteroscope are very similar. PubMed
48.
Al-Balushi K, Martin N, Loubon H, Baboudjian M, Michel F, Sichez PC, et al. Comparative medico-economic study of reusable vs. single-use flexible ureteroscopes. Int Urol Nephrol. 2019;51(10):1735–41.PubMed
49.
Preminger GM, Assimos DG, Lingeman JE, Nakada SY, Pearle MS, Wolf JS Jr, et al. Chapter 1: AUA guideline on management of staghorn calculi: diagnosis and treatment recommendations. J Urol. 2005;173(6):1991–2000.PubMed
50.
Kim SC, Kuo RL, Lingeman JE. Percutaneous nephrolithotomy: an update. Curr Opin Urol. 2003;13(3):235–41.PubMed
51.
Koo V, Beattie I, Young M. Improved cost-effectiveness and efficiency with a slower shockwave delivery rate. BJU Int. 2010;105(5):692–6.PubMed
52.
Lotan Y, Pearle MS. Economics of stone management. Urol Clin North Am. 2007;34(3):443–53.PubMed
53.
Hyams ES, Shah O. Percutaneous nephrostolithotomy versus flexible ureteroscopy/holmium laser lithotripsy: cost and outcome analysis. J Urol. 2009;182(3):1012–7.PubMed
54.
Akman T, Binbay M, Akcay M, Tekinarslan E, Kezer C, Ozgor F, et al. Variables that influence operative time during percutaneous nephrolithotomy: an analysis of 1897 cases. J Endourol. 2011;25(8):1269–73.PubMed
55.
Tanriverdi O, Boylu U, Kendirci M, Kadihasanoglu M, Horasanli K, Miroglu C. The learning curve in the training of percutaneous nephrolithotomy. Eur Urol. 2007;52(1):206–11.PubMed
56.
Raman JD, Bagrodia A, Bensalah K, Pearle MS, Lotan Y. Residual fragments after percutaneous nephrolithotomy: cost comparison of immediate second look flexible nephroscopy versus expectant management. J Urol. 2010;183(1):188–93.PubMed
57.
May DJ, Chandhoke PS. Efficacy and cost-effectiveness of extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy for solitary lower pole renal calculi. J Urol. 1998;159(1):24–7.PubMed
58.
Lotan Y, Gettman MT, Roehrborn CG, Cadeddu JA, Pearle MS. Management of ureteral calculi: a cost comparison and decision making analysis. J Urol. 2002;167(4):1621–9.PubMed
59.
Huang CY, Chen SS, Chen LK. Cost-effectiveness of treating ureteral stones in a Taipei City Hospital: shock wave lithotripsy versus ureteroscopy plus lithoclast. Urol Int. 2009;83(4):410–5.PubMed
60.
Parker BD, Frederick RW, Reilly TP, Lowry PS, Bird ET. Efficiency and cost of treating proximal ureteral stones: shock wave lithotripsy versus ureteroscopy plus holmium:yttrium-aluminum-garnet laser. Urology. 2004;64(6):1102–6 discussion 6.PubMed
61.
Izamin I, Aniza I, Rizal AM, Aljunid SM. Comparing extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy and ureteroscopy for treatment of proximal ureteric calculi: a cost-effectiveness study. Med J Malaysia. 2009;64(1):12–21.PubMed
62.
Wu CF, Chen CS, Lin WY, Shee JJ, Lin CL, Chen Y, et al. Therapeutic options for proximal ureter stone: extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy versus semirigid ureterorenoscope with holmium:yttrium-aluminum-garnet laser lithotripsy. Urology. 2005;65(6):1075–9.PubMed
63.
Bierkens AF, Hendrikx AJ, De La Rosette JJ, Stultiens GN, Beerlage HP, Arends AJ, et al. Treatment of mid- and lower ureteric calculi: extracorporeal shock-wave lithotripsy vs laser ureteroscopy. A comparison of costs, morbidity and effectiveness. Br J Urol. 1998;81(1):31–5.PubMed
64.
Wolf JS Jr, Carroll PR, Stoller ML. Cost-effectiveness v patient preference in the choice of treatment for distal ureteral calculi: a literature-based decision analysis. J Endourol. 1995;9(3):243–8.PubMed
65.
Chang CP, Huang SH, Tai HL, Wang BF, Yen MY, Huang KH, et al. Optimal treatment for distal ureteral calculi: extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy versus ureteroscopy. J Endourol. 2001;15(6):563–6.PubMed
66.
Matlaga BR, Jansen JP, Meckley LM, Byrne TW, Lingeman JE. Economic outcomes of treatment for ureteral and renal stones: a systematic literature review. J Urol. 2012;188(2):449–54.PubMedPubMedCentral
67.
68.
Resnick MI, Persky L. Summary of the National Institutes of Arthritis, Diabetes, Digestive and Kidney Diseases conference on urolithiasis: state of the art and future research needs. J Urol. 1995;153(1):4–9.PubMed
69.
Saigal CS, Joyce G, Timilsina AR. Urologic Diseases in America P. Direct and indirect costs of nephrolithiasis in an employed population: opportunity for disease management? Kidney Int. 2005;68(4):1808–14.PubMed
Metadaten
Titel
Economic Considerations in the Management of Nephrolithiasis
verfasst von
Daniel Roberson
Colin Sperling
Ankur Shah
Justin Ziemba
Publikationsdatum
01.05.2020
Verlag
Springer US
Erschienen in
Current Urology Reports / Ausgabe 5/2020
Print ISSN: 1527-2737
Elektronische ISSN: 1534-6285
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11934-020-00971-6

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 5/2020

Current Urology Reports 5/2020 Zur Ausgabe

Endourology (P Mucksavage and B Somani, Section Editors)

Role of Endourological Procedures (PCNL and URS) on Renal Function: a Systematic Review

Prostate Cancer (S Prasad, Section Editor)

Preventing Lethal Prostate Cancer with Diet, Supplements, and Rx: Heart Healthy Continues to Be Prostate Healthy and “First Do No Harm” Part III

Endourology (P Mucksavage and B Somani, Section Editors)

Reducing Opioid Use After Endourologic Procedures

Urothelial Cancer (S Daneshmand, Section Editor)

Blue Light Cystoscopy: Indications and Outcomes

Neu im Fachgebiet Urologie

Patrone im Penis bringt Urologen in Gefahr

30.05.2024 Operationen am Penis Nachrichten

In Lebensgefahr brachte ein junger Mann nicht nur sich selbst, sondern auch das urologische Team, das ihm zu Hilfe kam: Er hatte sich zur Selbstbefriedigung eine scharfe Patrone in die Harnröhre gesteckt.

15% bedauern gewählte Blasenkrebs-Therapie

29.05.2024 Urothelkarzinom Nachrichten

Ob Patienten und Patientinnen mit neu diagnostiziertem Blasenkrebs ein Jahr später Bedauern über die Therapieentscheidung empfinden, wird einer Studie aus England zufolge von der Radikalität und dem Erfolg des Eingriffs beeinflusst.

Costims – das nächste heiße Ding in der Krebstherapie?

28.05.2024 Onkologische Immuntherapie Nachrichten

„Kalte“ Tumoren werden heiß – CD28-kostimulatorische Antikörper sollen dies ermöglichen. Am besten könnten diese in Kombination mit BiTEs und Checkpointhemmern wirken. Erste klinische Studien laufen bereits.

Fehlerkultur in der Medizin – Offenheit zählt!

28.05.2024 Fehlerkultur Podcast

Darüber reden und aus Fehlern lernen, sollte das Motto in der Medizin lauten. Und zwar nicht nur im Sinne der Patientensicherheit. Eine negative Fehlerkultur kann auch die Behandelnden ernsthaft krank machen, warnt Prof. Dr. Reinhard Strametz. Ein Plädoyer und ein Leitfaden für den offenen Umgang mit kritischen Ereignissen in Medizin und Pflege.

Update Urologie

Bestellen Sie unseren Fach-Newsletter und bleiben Sie gut informiert.

Newsletter bestellen
Bildnachweise