Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Pneumatic versus laser ureteroscopic lithotripsy: a comparison of initial outcomes and cost

  • Urology - Original Paper
  • Published:
International Urology and Nephrology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

To audit the cost of laser versus pneumatic semirigid ureteroscopic lithotripsy and to analyze their relative initial outcomes and cost.

Methods

Hundred and eighty-seven patients who underwent semirigid ureteroscopic lithotripsy were analyzed retrospectively in terms of age and sex of the patients; location and size of the stones; the type of probe and ancillary equipment such as guide wire, basket catheter, JJ stent requirements; irrigation amount; operation time; the cost of the anesthesia and further treatments such as a JJ stent removal operation and shock wave lithotripsy requirements and their costs. Two groups were formed based on this type of lithotripters, pneumatic and laser lithotripsy.

Results

Operation times (min.) in terms of the stone size, for stones <100 and >100 mm2 were 20.75 ± 10.78 and 25.82 ± 14.23, respectively (p = 0.007). Operation times for the pneumatic and laser groups were 33.05 ± 11.36 and 15.25 ± 6.14, respectively (p < 0.05).The stone-free rates for pneumatic and laser groups were 89.6 % (n = 69) and 98.2 % (n = 108), respectively (p = 0.01). The mean cost of the operations for each of the study groups was 261.5 ± 66.13 and 311.7 ± 51.97 US$, respectively (p = 0.001). The mean cost in terms of the stone size, for stones <100 and >100 mm2, was 272.86 ± 53.05 and 323.71 ± 66.88 US$, respectively (p = 0.01).

Conclusions

It seems that usage of laser lithotripsy (LL) in patients with ureteral stones is more effective than pneumatic lithotripsy (PL) in terms of operation time and SF rate. On the other hand, the mean cost of LL seems to be more expensive than PL. Urologists should think these parameters before the choice of these two treatment modalities. The higher the effectiveness, the greater the cost.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Türk C, Knoll T, Petrik A, Sarica K, Straub M, Seitz C (2012) Guidelines on urolithiasis. Eur Assoc Urol 1–100

  2. Preminger GM, Tiselius HG, Assimos DG et al (2007) American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc; European Association of Urology. 2007 Guideline for the management of ureteral calculi. Eur Urol 52(6):1610–1631

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Wu CF, Shee JJ, Lin WY et al (2004) Comparison between extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy and semirigid ureterorenoscope with holmium:YAG laser for treating large proximal ureteral Stones. J Urol 172(5 Pt 1):1899–1902

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Teichman JM, Rao RD, Rogenes VJ et al (1997) Ureteroscopic management of ureteral calculi: electrohydraulic versus holmium:YAG lithotripsy. J Urol 158(4):1357–1361

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Matlaga BR, Lingeman JE (2009) Surgical management of stones: new technology. Adv Chronic Kidney Dis 16(1):60–64

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  6. Delvecchio FC, Kuo RL et al (2000) Clinical efficacy of combined lithoclast and lithovac stone removal during ureteroscopy. J Urol 164(1):40–42

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Nerli RB, Koura AC, Prabna V et al (2008) Use of LMA stonebreaker as an intracorporeal lithotrite in the management of ureteral calculi. J Endourol 22(4):641–644

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Garg S, Mandal AK, Singh SK et al (2009) Ureteroscopic laser lithotripsy versus ballistic lithotripsy for treatment of ureteric stones: a prospective comparative study. Urol Int 82(3):341–345

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Pedro RN, Netto NR Jr (2008) Proximal ureteral calculi: shock wave or ureterolithotripsy? Urol Int 1(2):198–201

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Ahmed M, Pedro RN, Kieley S et al (2009) Systematic evaluation of ureteral occlusion devices: insertion, deployment, stone migration, and extraction. Urology 73(5):976–980

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. WuJungle CH, Lin MS, Hsieh HL et al (2007) The efficacy of a combined pneumatic/ultrasound device in percutaneous nephrolithotripsy. Mid-Taiwan J Med 12(1):8–13

    Google Scholar 

  12. Pierre S, Preminger GM (2007) Holmium laser for stone management. World J Urol 25(3):235–239

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Bader MJ, Gratzke C, Walther S et al (2010) Efficacy of retrograde ureteropyeloscopic holmium laser lithotripsy for intrarenal calculi >2 cm. Urol Res 38(5):397–402

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Cape JD, Beca JM, Hoch JS (2013) Introduction to cost-effectiveness analysis for clinicians. UTMJ 90(3):103–105

    Google Scholar 

  15. Haycox A, Noble E (2009) What is Health Economics? Bandolier [Internet] [cited 2012 oct]:1–8. http://www.medicine.ox.ac.uk/bandolier/patients/download/whatis/what_is_health_ccon.pdf

  16. No authors listed (2012) An Introduction to the methods of cost-effectiveness analysis. Drug Ther Bull 50(7):81-84

  17. Hoch JS, Dewa CS (2008) A clinician’s guide to correct cost-effectiveness analysis: think incremental not average. Can J Psychiatry 53(4):267–274

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Gurbuz C, Atış G, Arikan O, Efilioglu O, Yildirim A, Danacaioglu O et al (2013) The cost analysis of flexible ureteroscopic lithotripsy in 302 cases. Urolithiasis. doi:10.1007/s00240-013-0628-x

    Google Scholar 

  19. Isen K (2012) Pneumatic ureteroscopic lithotripsy: is it still a reasonable treatment option for multiple ureteric stones? Urol Int 88:316–321

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Binbay M, Tepeler A, Singh A, Akman T, Erdem T, Sarilar O et al (2011) Evaluation of pneumatic versus holmium: YAG laser lithotripsy for impacted ureteral Stones. Int Urol Nephrol 43:989–995

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Jeon SS, Hyun JH, Lee KS (2005) A comparison of holmium: YAG laser with lithoclast lithotripsy in ureteral calculi fragmentation. Int J Urol 12:544–547

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Robert M, Bennani A, Guiter J, Averous M, Grasset D (1994) Treatment of 150 ureteric calculi with the lithoclast. Eur Urol 26:212–215

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Vorreuther R, Koltz T, Heidenreich A, Nayal W, Engelmann U (1998) Pneumatic vs electrokinetic lithotripsy in treatment of ureteral stones. J Endourol 12:233–236

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Elashry OM, Tawfik AM (2012) Preventing stone retropulsion during intracorporeal lithotripsy. Nat Rev Urol 9:691–698

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Razzaghi MR, Razi A, Mazloomfard MM, Taklimi AG, Valipour R, Razzaghi Z (2013) Safety and efficacy of pneumatic lithotripters versus holmium laser in management of ureteral calculi a randomized clinical trial. Urol J 10(1):762–766

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Haleblian G, Kijvikai K, de la Rosette J et al (2008) Ureteral stenting and urinary stone management: a systematic review. J Urol 179(2):424–430

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Bapat SS, Pai KV, Purnapatre SS, Yadav PB, Padye AS (2007) Comparison of holmium laser and pneumatic lithotripsy in managing upper-ureteral Stones. J Endourol 21(12):1452–1457

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Schuster TG, Hallenbeck BK, Faerber GJ, Wolf JS Jr (2001) Complications of ureteroscopy: analysis of predictive factors. J Urol 166(2):538–540

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Urology, Faculty of Medicine, Kafkas Üniversitesi Tıp Fakültesi, Kars, Turkey

    Aslan Demir, Mert Ali Karadağ, Kurşat Çeçen, Mehmet Uslu & Ömer Erkam Arslan

Authors
  1. Aslan Demir
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Mert Ali Karadağ
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Kurşat Çeçen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Mehmet Uslu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Ömer Erkam Arslan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Aslan Demir.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Demir, A., Karadağ, M.A., Çeçen, K. et al. Pneumatic versus laser ureteroscopic lithotripsy: a comparison of initial outcomes and cost. Int Urol Nephrol 46, 2087–2093 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11255-014-0787-x

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11255-014-0787-x

Keywords

Search

Navigation