PDF
ePub
Citation
Print
Abstract
Purpose
We wanted to evaluate the cost and effectiveness of different medical options for treating lower calyceal stones that measure less than 2cm, and specifically percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PNL) versus extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL).
Materials and Methods
A total of 61 patients with lower calyceal stones that measured less than 2cm were divided into two groups according to the first-line of treatment modality: the PNL (group 1) group and the ESWL (group 2) group. Each group was divided into two sub-groups; subgroup A, which included stones less than 1cm (group 1A and 2A) and subgroup B, which included stones that measured 1-2cm (group 1B and 2B). The stone-free rate and many other factors were analyzed.
Results
The success rates of treatment for group 1A and 2A were 100% (8/8) and 76.4% (13/17), respectively (p=0.269). However, in groups 1B and 2B, the success rates of treatment were 100% (14/14) and 63.6% (14/22), respectively (p=0.013), with group 1B showing a higher success rate. The total cost of treatment and the average of a patient's expenditure per group were as follows: group 1 with 2,622,501 won and 1,093,508 won, respectively; group 2 with 938,225 won and 447,935 won, respectively (p<0.001).
Conclusions
The results of this study indicate that ESWL can serve as an effective first-line treatment modality for lower calyceal stones that measured less than 2cm. However, when considering other factors, such as the expensive burden of additional treatment and our national health insurance system, PNL may be an acceptable first-line treatment modality for lower calyceal stones that measure 1-2cm.
Figures and Tables
References
1. Wilson WJ, Preminger GM. Extracoporeal shock wave lithotripsy; an update. Urol Clin North Am. 1990. 17:231–242.
2. May DJ, Chandhoke PS. Efficacy and cost-effectiveness of extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy for solitary lower pole renal calculi. J Urol. 1998. 159:24–27.
3. Lingeman JE, Siegel YI, Steele B, Nyhuis AW, Woods JR. Management of lower pole nephrolithiasis: a critical analysis. J Urol. 1994. 151:663–667.
4. Yang SC, Park DS, Lee JM. Major factors influencing on the success of extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy. Korean J Urol. 1994. 35:265–271.
5. Mattelaer P, Wolff JM, Jung P, Feistkorn C, Jakse G. Longterm follow-up after primary extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy monotherapy of staghorn calculi: results after more than 6 years. Acta Urol Belg. 1997. 65:41–45.
6. Vallancien G, Aviles J, Munoz R, Veillon B, Charton M, Brisset JM. Piezoelectric extracorporeal lithotripsy by ultrashort waves with the EDAP LT 01 device. J Urol. 1989. 139:689–694.
7. Jo EJ, Kang SJ, Shin SJ, Choi SH. ESWL of caliceal diverticula calculi. Korean J Urol. 1990. 31:229–234.
8. Graff J, Diederichs W, Schulze H. Long-term follow up in 1,003 extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy patients. J Urol. 1988. 140:479–483.
9. Ghoneim IA, Ziada AM, Elkatib SE. Predictive factors of lower calyceal stone clearance after extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL): a focus on the infundibulopelvic anatomy. Eur Urol. 2005. 48:296–302.
10. Ruggera L, Beltrami P, Ballario R, Cavalleri S, Cazzoletti L, Artibani W. Impact of anatomical pielocaliceal topography in the treatment of renal lower calyces stones with extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy. Int J Urol. 2005. 12:525–532.
11. Onal B, Demirkesen O, Tansu N, Kalkan M, Altintas R, Yalcin V. The impact of caliceal pelvic anatomy on stone clearance after shock wave lithotripsy for pediatric lower pole stones. J Urol. 2004. 172:1082–1086.
12. Sorensen CM, Chandhoke PS. Is lower pole caliceal anatomy predictive of extracoporeal shock wave lithotripsy success for primary lower pole kidney stones? J Urol. 2002. 168:2377–2382.
13. Sumino Y, Mimata H, Tasaki Y, Ohno H, Hoshino T, Nomura T, et al. Predictors of lower pole renal stone clearance after extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy. J Urol. 2002. 168:1344–1347.
14. Chang SG, Chae SE. Clinical results of piezoelectric shock wave lithotripsy for treatment of patients with urolithiasis. Korean J Urol. 1989. 30:560–568.
15. McCullough DL. Extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy and residual stone fragments in lower calices. J Urol. 1989. 141:140.
16. Sampaio FJ, Aragao AH. Inferior pole collecting system anatomy: its probable role in extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy. J Urol. 1992. 147:322–324.
17. Elbahnasy AM, Shalhav AL, Hoenig DM, Elahry OM, Smith DS, McDougall EM, et al. Lower caliceal stone clearance after shock wave lithotripsy or ureteroscopy: the impact of lower pole radiographic anatomy. J Urol. 1998. 159:676–682.
18. Keeley FX Jr, Moussa SA, Smith G, Tolley DA. Clearance of lower-pole stones following shock wave lithotripsy: effect of the infundibulopelvic angle. Eur Urol. 1999. 36:371–375.
19. Sampaio FJ, Aragao AH. Limitations of extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy for lower caliceal stones: anatomic insight. J Endourol. 1994. 8:241–247.
20. Bagley DH, Rittenberg MH. Intrarenal dimensions. Guidelines for flexible ureteropyeloscopes. Surg Endosc. 1987. 1:119–112.
XML Download