Impact of socioeconomic status in etiology and management of urinary stone disease

Introduction: The diverse manifestations of urolithiasis provide a very interesting epidemiological study from the standpoints of geography, socioeconomic status, nutrition and culture. Stone disease not only affects the patient, but also the national economy, as the disease is prevalent in the productive age group. There has been a continuous search for the cost-effectiveness of different treatment modalities not only to treat the patient but also to prevent its recurrence. Material and Methods: The various socioeconomic and dietary factors playing roles in the etiology of urinary calculi in the stone-prevalent areas of the world were analyzed. The impact of urinary tract stone disease on the socioeconomic infrastructure of the patient and national economy was studied. A cost-effectiveness analysis vis-h-vis the safety and efficacy of various treatment modalities in both developed and developing countries was done. Results: The standard of living and level of nutrition have directly influenced the process of urolithiasis amongst the communities of the world. A low socioeconomic status has been linked to endemic bladder calculi seen in many poor countries with people subsisting on a deficient diet. The incidence of upper urinary tract calculi increases with prosperity and more nutritious diet. Replacement of open surgery with minimally invasive techniques (ESWL, PCNL, URS) for treating stones in the urinary tract has greatly reduced the patients' morbidity and mortality and the period of hospitalization and convalescence. This change in treatment has also led to less days of absence from work and could minimize the loss to national economy. Minimally invasive surgery is more cost effective in developed countries because of the short hospital stay. However, in developing countries open surgery still appears to be cost-effective in certain subset of the patients. Conclusions: There is a need for proper health care and a medical insurance system to take care of the financial burden, especially in developing countries, of a disease with a high magnitude of recurrence and morbidity. The need and type of medical treatment should be appraised continually to accommodate advances in techniques of stone removal. Lastly, the quest for etiology, cost-effective treatment and prevention still continues and even today we cannot say better than Frere Jacques, 'l have removed the stone, it is up to God to cure the patient'.