Primary SWL Is an Efficient and Cost-Effective Treatment for Lower Pole Renal Stones Between 10 and 20mm in Size: A Large Single Center Study

被引:16
作者
Chan, Luke H. [1 ]
Good, Daniel W. [1 ]
Laing, Karina [1 ,2 ]
Phipps, Simon [1 ]
Thomas, Ben G. [1 ]
Keanie, Julian Y. [1 ]
Tolley, David A. [1 ]
Cutress, Mark L. [1 ]
机构
[1] NHS Lothian, Western Gen Hosp, Scottish Lithotriptor Ctr, Dept Urol, Edinburgh EH4 2XU, Midlothian, Scotland
[2] Raigmore Hosp, Dept Urol, Inverness, Scotland
关键词
lower pole; stones; renal calculi; SWL; FURS; PCNL; SHOCK-WAVE LITHOTRIPSY; RETROGRADE INTRARENAL SURGERY; LOWER CALICEAL STONES; PERCUTANEOUS NEPHROLITHOTOMY; FLEXIBLE URETERORENOSCOPY; LASER LITHOTRIPSY; CALCULI; MANAGEMENT; CLEARANCE; OUTCOMES;
D O I
10.1089/end.2016.0825
中图分类号
R5 [内科学]; R69 [泌尿科学(泌尿生殖系疾病)];
学科分类号
1002 ; 100201 ;
摘要
Introduction: To assess the clinical features, outcomes, complications, and cost-effectiveness of shockwave lithotripsy (SWL), flexible ureterorenoscopy (FURS), and percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL) in the treatment of lower pole (LP) stones (10-20mm) in a large tertiary referral center. Patients and Methods: Consecutive patients treated for solitary LP stones (10-20mm) between 2008 and 2013 were identified from a prospective database. SWL was used as primary treatment in all cases (following a stone multidisciplinary team assessment), with FURS and PCNL reserved for SWL contraindications, failure, or patientchoice. "Success'' was defined asstone free and/or clinically insignificant stone fragments (<= 3mm) at 1 and 3 months follow-up. Effect of anatomy on SWL success was determined from using CT images and regression analysis. Average cost per treatment modality (including additional second-line treatments) was calculated for each group using the National Health Service England 2014/15 National Tariff Healthcare Resource Group codes. Results: Two hundred twenty-five patients were included (mean age 54.9; median stone size 12 mm). One hundred ninety-eight (88%), 21 (9.3%), and 6 (2.7%) patients underwent SWL, FURS, and PCNL as primary treatments, respectively, for median stone sizes of 12, 12, and 20 mm. Overall success rates were 82.8%, 76.1%, and 66.7%, respectively (p < 0.05). Sixty-three percent of patients undergoing primary SWL were effectively treated after one session. Anatomical analysis determined infundibulopelvic angle and infundibular length to be significantly different in patients effectively treated with SWL (p = 0.04). The average cost per treatment modality was also significantly lower for SWL (750) pound than for FURS (1261) pound or PCNL (2658) pound (p < 0.01). Conclusion: SWL is both an efficacious and cost-effective primary treatment for patients with solitary LP stones (10-20 mm). The majority of patients can be effectively treated with primary SWL in a dedicated stone center, with the benefits of a short length of stay, low complication, and auxiliary treatment rates. The referral of such patients to high-volume lithotripsy centers with demonstrable outcomes should be given due consideration.
引用
收藏
页码:510 / 516
页数:7
相关论文
共 33 条
[1]   Lower pole I: A prospective randomized trial of extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy and percutaneous nephrostolithotomy for lower pole nephrolithiasis - Initial results [J].
Albala, DM ;
Assimos, DG ;
Clayman, RV ;
Denstedt, JD ;
Grasso, M ;
Gutierrez-Aceves, J ;
Kahn, RI ;
Leveillee, RJ ;
Lingeman, JE ;
Macaluso, JN ;
Munch, LC ;
Nakada, SY ;
Newman, RC ;
Pearle, MS ;
Preminger, GM ;
Teichman, J ;
Woods, JR .
JOURNAL OF UROLOGY, 2001, 166 (06) :2072-2080
[2]  
[Anonymous], 2013, 2014 15 NATL TARIFF
[3]   Percutaneous nephrolithotomy in England: practice and outcomes described in the Hospital Episode Statistics database [J].
Armitage, James N. ;
Withington, John ;
van der Meulen, Jan ;
Cromwell, David A. ;
Glass, Jonathan ;
Finch, William G. ;
Irving, Stuart O. ;
Burgess, Neil A. .
BJU INTERNATIONAL, 2014, 113 (05) :777-782
[4]   Is flexible ureterorenoscopy and laser lithotripsy the new gold standard for lower pole renal stones when compared to shock wave lithotripsy: Comparative outcomes from a University hospital over similar time period [J].
Burr, Jacob ;
Ishii, Hiro ;
Simmonds, Nick ;
Somani, Bhaskar K. .
CENTRAL EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF UROLOGY, 2015, 68 (02) :183-186
[5]   Contemporary Practice Patterns of Flexible Ureteroscopy for Treating Renal Stones: Results of a Worldwide Survey [J].
Dauw, Casey A. ;
Simeon, Laika ;
Alruwaily, Abdulrahman F. ;
Sanguedolce, Francesco ;
Hollingsworth, John M. ;
Roberts, William W. ;
Faerber, Gary J. ;
Wolf, J. Stuart, Jr. ;
Ghani, Khurshid R. .
JOURNAL OF ENDOUROLOGY, 2015, 29 (11) :1221-1230
[6]   Classification of surgical complications - A new proposal with evaluation in a cohort of 6336 patients and results of a survey [J].
Dindo, D ;
Demartines, N ;
Clavien, PA .
ANNALS OF SURGERY, 2004, 240 (02) :205-213
[7]  
Doherty RM, 2015, EUR UROL, V14, pe96
[8]   A prospective multivariate analysis of factors predicting stone disintegration by extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy: The value of high-resolution noncontrast computed tomography [J].
El-Nahas, Ahmed R. ;
El-Assmy, Ahmed M. ;
Mansour, Osama ;
Sheir, Khaled Z. .
EUROPEAN UROLOGY, 2007, 51 (06) :1688-1694
[9]   Flexible ureterorenoscopy versus extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy for treatment of lower pole stones of 10-20 mm [J].
El-Nahas, Ahmed R. ;
Ibrahim, Hamdy M. ;
Youssef, Ramy F. ;
Sheir, Khaled Z. .
BJU INTERNATIONAL, 2012, 110 (06) :898-902
[10]   Lower caliceal stone clearance after shock wave lithotripsy or ureteroscopy: The impact of lower pole radiographic anatomy [J].
Elbahnasy, AM ;
Shalhav, AL ;
Hoenig, DM ;
Elashry, OM ;
Smith, DS ;
McDougall, EM ;
Clayman, RV .
JOURNAL OF UROLOGY, 1998, 159 (03) :676-682