Search

Objective: To evaluate the relationship between patient complexity, practice setting, and surgeon reimbursement for ureteroscopy and percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL)., Methods: The "2021 Medicare Physician and Other Provider" file was used to collect Rural-Urban Commuting Area (RUCA) codes and hierarchical condition category (HCC) scores of urologists. Higher HCC score corresponds to higher medical complexity and higher RUCA code corresponds to a more rural area. Medicare reimbursement for ureteroscopy and PCNL were collected. Linear regressions were performed to predict change in reimbursement based on RUCA and HCC scores., Results: In 2021, 52,816 procedures under Current Procedural Terminology (CPT) code 52356 (ureteroscopy) and 1649 procedures under 50080 or 50081 (PCNL) were billed to Medicare. Mean reimbursement was $338.24 for ureteroscopy and $957.89 for PCNL. For ureteroscopy, higher HCC score predicted lower reimbursement (P <.001). Higher HCC score predicted higher reimbursement for PCNL (P <.01). Average RUCA for ureteroscopy was higher than for PCNL (P = .02). Rural location predicted lower reimbursement for ureteroscopy (P <.001), however, there was no association for PCNL., Conclusion: For ureteroscopy, higher-risk patients are associated with lower reimbursement while the opposite holds true for PCNL. Rural practices were associated with lower reimbursement for ureteroscopy, but there was no association between location and PCNL reimbursement. Together, these findings suggest practice pattern variation between ureteroscopy and PCNL and highlight gaps in reimbursement policy. Risk-adjusted reimbursement should be considered to incentivize urologists to treat complex patients within their practice scope., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest., (Copyright © 2024 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Introduction: Financial toxicity has been described in stone formers; however, little is understood regarding its causes and how it may relate to stone surgery. We therefore aimed to longitudinally describe markers of financial strain in stone formers from the preoperative to postoperative time points., Methods: A prospective cohort study was conducted from January 2022 to April 2023. Patients were enrolled in the waiting area prior to undergoing elective ureteroscopy or percutaneous nephrolithotomy. Participants completed The Commonwealth Fund's Biennial Health Insurance Survey at this time point and at 30 days postoperatively. Items were preselected from the survey to capture markers of financial strain due to health care costs., Results: One hundred nine participants were enrolled. White (70%), college-educated (62%), and privately insured (72%) patients comprised the majority of participants. Despite these traditionally protective sociodemographic features, 42% of patients reported some marker of financial strain at the preoperative time point. Patients with Medicaid reported even higher financial stress (67%). Furthermore, 46% of patients did not know their deductible amount. Response rate was low at 30 days postoperatively (35%) but suggested some patients were experiencing new financial strains., Conclusions: This paper shows that a significant proportion of stone patients are already displaying markers of financial strain from health care bills even prior to surgery as well as poor understanding of the costs they may incur. This makes them vulnerable to experiencing financial toxicity postoperatively and emphasizes the importance of understanding all contributing factors when developing future strategies to intervene in financial toxicity.

Background: Anti-retropulsive devices are often used to prevent stone migration in the treatment of proximal ureteral calculi. They are helpful. However, in the meantime, they also add extra expenses. This study was carried out to investigate the best criteria for treating proximal ureteral stones with anti-retropulsive devices., Methods: Data from all patients who underwent ureteroscopic holmium: YAG laser lithotripsy for solitary upper ureteral stones in 2018 were collected. Patients who encountered stone retropulsion during the process of inserting the ureteroscope were excluded. Patients were divided into either group URS or group URS + ARD depending on whether the anti-retropulsive device was used. Then, the stone-free rate, expenses and other criteria were compared between groups according to stone location. Stone-free was defined as no stones present., Results: For stones located ≤ 30 mm from the ureteropelvic junction (UPJ), the stone-free rates for the URS group were 80% and 80% at one day and one month after the operation, respectively. Those for the URS + ARD group were 71.4% and 78.6% at one day and one month, respectively. For stones located 31-90 mm from the UPJ, the stone-free rates were 84.7% and 84.7% for the URS group and 89.6% and 95.5% for the URS + ARD group at one day and one month, respectively. A statistically significant difference occurred at one month. For stones located > 90 mm from the UPJ, the two groups were both stone free. In the URS + ARD group, expenses were higher. In addition, the mean diameter of residual stones derived from stones located at 31-90 mm from the UPJ was statistically smaller, and 4 of 7 residual stones passed spontaneously within one month, which was obviously more than that in other locations and the URS group. Other outcomes, including operation time and postoperative stay, showed no significant difference between the groups., Conclusion: Anti-retropulsive devices are indeed helpful, but they might be cost-effective for stones located solely in the middle part of the upper ureter, not for those too close to or far from the ureteropelvic junction., (© 2022. The Author(s).)

Objective: To characterize full cycle of care costs for managing an acute ureteral stone using time-driven activity-based costing., Methods: We defined all phases of care for patients presenting with an acute ureteral stone and built an overarching process map. Maps for sub-processes were constructed through interviews with providers and direct observation of clinical spaces. This facilitated calculation of cost per minute for all aspects of care delivery, which were multiplied by associated process times. These were added to consumable costs to determine cost for each specific step and later aggregated to determine total cost for each sub-process. We compared costs of eight common clinical pathways for acute stone management, defining total cycle of care cost as the sum of all sub-processes that comprised each pathway., Results: Cost per sub-process included $920 for emergency department (ED) care, $1665 for operative stent placement, $2368 for percutaneous nephrostomy tube placement, $106 for urology clinic consultation, $238 for preoperative center visit, $4057 for ureteroscopy with laser lithotripsy (URS), $2923 for extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy, $169 for clinic stent removal, $197 for abdominal x-ray, and $166 for ultrasound. The lowest cost pathway ($1388) was for medical expulsive therapy, whereas the most expensive pathway ($8002) entailed a repeat ED visit prompting temporizing stent placement and interval URS., Conclusion: We found a high degree of cost variation between care pathways common to management of acute ureteral stone episodes. Reliable cost accounting data and an understanding of variability in clinical pathway costs can inform value-based care redesign as payors move away from pure fee-for-service reimbursement., (Copyright © 2021 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objective: To perform a cost-effectiveness evaluation comparing the management options for mid-size (1-2cm) renal stones including percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL), retrograde intrarenal surgery (RIRS), and shockwave lithotripsy (SWL)., Methods: A Markov model was created to compare cost-effectiveness of PCNL, mini-PCNL, RIRS, and SWL for 1-2cm lower pole (index patient 1) and PCNL, RIRS, and SWL for 1-2 cm non-lower pole (index patient 2) renal stones. A literature review provided stone free, complication, retreatment, secondary procedure rates, and quality adjusted life years (QALYs). Medicare costs were used. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was compared with a willingness-to-pay(WTP) threshold of $100,000/QALY. One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed., Results: At 3 years, costs for index patient 1 were $10,290(PCNL), $10,109(mini-PCNL), $5,930(RIRS), and $10,916(SWL). Mini-PCNL resulted in the highest QALYs(2.953) followed by PCNL(2.951), RIRS(2.946), and SWL(2.943). This translated to RIRS being most cost-effective followed by mini-PCNL(ICER $624,075/QALY) and PCNL(ICER $946,464/QALY). SWL was dominated with higher costs and lower effectiveness. For index patient 2, RIRS dominated both PCNL and SWL. For index patient 1: mini-PCNL and PCNL became cost effective if cost ≤$5,940 and ≤$5,390, respectively. SWL became cost-effective with SFR ≥75% or cost ≤$1,236. On probabilistic sensitivity analysis, the most cost-effective strategy was RIRS in 97%, mini-PCNL in 2%, PCNL in 1%, and SWL in 0% of simulations., Conclusion: For 1-2cm renal stones, RIRS is most cost-effective. However, mini and standard PCNL could become cost-effective at lower costs, particularly for lower pole stones., (Published by Elsevier Inc.)

Objective: To perform a comparative analysis of indirect and direct costs of two minimally invasive techniques (extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL) vs. ureteroscopy with holmium laser (URS/RIRS)) for the treatment of renal/ureteral calculi smaller than 2 cm., Material and Methods: Prospective, comparative, non-randomized study of 84 patients treated for kidney stones smaller than 2 cm between January and December 2016. Of these, 38 (45.67%) were treated with ESWL (18 renal lithiasis and 20 ureteral lithiasis) and 46 (54.32%) with URS/RIRS (22 renal lithiasis and 24 ureteral lithiasis). A total of 19 (41.3%) patients in the URS/RIRS group and 15 (39.5%) patients in the ESWL group were actively working before treatment. The variables analyzed were sex, age, number and size of lithiasis, time (days) off from work due to treatment, estimate of indirect cost due to labor productivity loss and direct treatment costs including follow-up (total number of procedures, ancillary care, visits and diagnostic tests). The 2015 Wage Structure Survey (INE) was used to estimate the indirect cost. In addition, the «Work Productivity and Activity Impairment» (WPAI) questionnaire was also used to determine the level of perceived productivity loss., Results: The mean number of sessions until lithiasis resolution was achieved was 2.57 for the ESWL group and 1.04 for the URS. The mean number of days off from work in the URS group was 7.16 days and 3.18 (p = 0.034) in the ESWL group. The total indirect costs resulting from productivity loss were EUR 621.55 and EUR 276.05 for the URS and ESWL, respectively. Direct costs in the ESWL group were EUR 1,382.9 and EUR 2,317.71 in the URS group. The level of work impairment perceived by patients undergoing URS was 18.88% and 21.33% in the ESWL group. The degree of impairment for performing activities of daily living was 24.44% in the URS and 15% in ESWL., Conclusions: The ESWL technique requires a higher number of sessions for the resolution of kidney stones under 2 cm, but it has a lower impact on total costs and on the perceived degree of affectation., (Copyright © 2020 AEU. Publicado por Elsevier España, S.L.U. All rights reserved.)

Introduction: Renal stones are common, with a lifetime prevalence of 10% in adults. Global incidence is increasing due to increases in obesity and diabetes, with these patient populations being more likely to suffer renal stone disease. Flank pain from stones (renal colic) is the most common cause of emergency admission to UK urology departments. Stones most commonly develop in the lower pole of the kidney (in ~35% of cases) and here are least likely to pass without intervention. Currently there are three technologies available within the UK National Health Service to remove lower pole kidney stones: extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy (ESWL), percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL) and flexible ureterorenoscopy (FURS) with laser lithotripsy. Current evidence indicates there is uncertainty regarding the management of lower pole stones, and each treatment has advantages and disadvantages. The aim of this trial is to determine the clinical and cost effectiveness of FURS compared with ESWL or PCNL in the treatment of lower pole kidney stones., Methods: The PUrE (PCNL, FURS and ESWL for lower pole kidney stones) trial is a multi-centre, randomised controlled trial (RCT) evaluating FURS versus ESWL or PCNL for lower pole kidney stones. Patients aged ≥16 years with a stone(s) in the lower pole of either kidney confirmed by non-contrast computed tomography of the kidney, ureter and bladder (CTKUB) and requiring treatment for a stone ≤10 mm will be randomised to receive FURS or ESWL (RCT1), and those requiring treatment for a stone >10 mm to ≤25 mm will be randomised to receive FURS or PCNL (RCT2). Participants will undergo follow-up by questionnaires every week up to 12 weeks post-intervention and at 12 months post-randomisation. The primary clinical outcome is health status measured by the area under the curve calculated from multiple measurements of the EuroQol five dimensions five-level version (EQ-5D-5L) questionnaire up to 12 weeks post-intervention. The primary economic outcome is the incremental cost per quality-adjusted life year gained at 12 months post-randomisation., Discussion: The PUrE trial aims to provide robust evidence on health status, quality of life, clinical outcomes and resource use to directly inform choice and National Health Service provision of the three treatment options., Trial Registration: ISRCTN: ISRCTN98970319. Registered on 11 November 2015.

Objectives: To compare the total cost of a treatment strategy starting with ureteroscopy (URS) vs a strategy starting with extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy (ESWL)., Methods: For ureteric stones of <10 mm, URS or ESWL are the main treatment options that are considered. Although the interventions differ, the goal of the interventions is to achieve a stone-free status. A systematic review and meta-analysis undertaken as part of the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) guideline on 'Renal and ureteric stones: assessment and management' identified URS as more effective, in terms of getting people stone free, but has a higher probability of re-admission and adverse events (AEs) that contributes to downstream resource use. ESWL is initially less costly, but lower effectiveness means a greater need for repeat or ancillary procedures in order to get a patient stone free. Given these trade-offs between benefits and costs, a cost analysis of URS and ESWL was undertaken as part of the NICE guideline, using evidence from the literature of effectiveness, re-admission and AEs. The NICE guideline meta-analysis showed a lot of heterogeneity and differences in how outcomes were reported between studies. The costing analysis, therefore only used studies where: (i) patients were rendered stone free, and (ii) where effectiveness, was based on the first-line (initial) procedures. Exploratory quality adjusted life year (QALY) work was also undertaken to identify the QALY and quality of life (QoL) differences required for the most expensive intervention to be cost effective, based on the assumption that the difference in effectiveness between the initial procedures would be the main source of the QALY gain between the two strategies., Results: The URS strategy was more costly overall than the ESWL strategy (incremental cost of £2387 [pounds sterling]). Sensitivity analysis varying the initial effectiveness of ESWL treatment (between the base case value of 82% and 40%) showed that URS would still be a more costly strategy even if the initial session of ESWL only had a success probability of 40%. A two-way sensitivity analysis as part of the exploratory QALY work showed that ESWL would have to have very low effectiveness and people would have to wait for further treatment for many weeks (following a failed ESWL treatment) for there to be feasible QoL gains to justify the additional cost of the URS strategy., Conclusions: ESWL is less effective at initial stone clearance and therefore requires more ancillary interventions than URS. However, the magnitude of the difference in costs means URS is unlikely to be cost effective intervention at a population level for first-line treatment, implying ESWL should be the first choice treatment., (© 2019 The Authors BJU International © 2019 BJU International Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Purpose of Review: Single-use flexible ureteroscopes (su-fURS) aim at overcoming the main limitations of conventional reusable ureteroscopes in terms of acquisition and maintenance costs, breakages, and reprocessing. However, little data exist to date regarding the superiority of su-fURS at this regard. We aimed to perform a systematic literature review on available su-fURS performance with a focus on clinical data for all articles in the last 10 years., Recent Findings: To date, more than 10 different su-fURS are available on the market, with different characteristics and performance. Some of these devices have top-level features, almost catching up with those observed in reusable flexible ureteroscopes. Clinical evidence is mainly available only for two models, LithoVue and Uscope PU3022, and to date it is not strong enough to support routine adoption and use of su-fURS, with a consequent lack of consensus of specific clinical indications. Cost-effectiveness analyses seem to indicate an economic disadvantage in the routine adoption of su-fURS. Environmental issues related to the use of su-fURS also remain to be inquired and addressed., Summary: Since their introduction, su-fURS have gained widespread popularity. Despite their ability at addressing reusable ureteroscope limitations, high-cost and a substantial lack of evidence are still limiting their routine adoption.

Purpose: Kidney stones are one of the most common urological problems. When deciding on the method of treatment for this common disease, the cost of the procedure should also be taken into consideration., Materials and Methods: We performed a retrospective analysis of 55 patients who underwent percutaneous nephrolithotomy and 75 patients who underwent retrograde intrarenal surgery between January 2016 and November 2018. Until operative success was achieved, all additional surgical procedures, extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy procedures, and interventional procedures required to resolve complications were recorded. Total cost was compared between the percutaneous nephrolithotomy and retrograde intrarenal surgery groups., Results: No significant difference was found between the percutaneous nephrolithotomy and retrograde intrarenal surgery groups in terms of gender, mean age, stone side, stone localization and stone surface area. The total cost of 55 patients that underwent percutaneous nephrolithotomy was calculated as US$14.766 after the first operation, and the total cost of 75 patients that underwent retrograde intrarenal surgery was determined to be US$46.627. The mean cost per patient was calculated US$320 ± US$186 for percutaneous nephrolithotomy and US$749 ± US$242 for retrograde intrarenal surgery (p < 0.001)., Conclusions: Percutaneous nephrolithotomy is a lower-cost and successful method in the surgical treatment of 1-3 cm stones, but the serious complications involved in this operation should be kept in mind.

Purpose: Stent omission after routine ureteroscopy (rtURS) is accepted by current guidelines and may result in decreased patient morbidity and treatment costs. In a value-based healthcare model, the added morbidity and cost of routine stent placement may be scrutinized. Furthermore, data are limited on urologist cost knowledge and it is effect on ureteral stent placement. As such, we seek to describe ureteral stenting practices and urologist cost knowledge amongst US and non-US-based urologists., Methods: The ureteroscopic practice patterns and cost awareness of members of the Endourological Society were surveyed using an international email listserv. Respondents were grouped by practice location (US vs non-US). Logistic regression was used to evaluate the associations of surgeon practice location with stenting practices., Results: 233 completed responses were received with a response rate of 13.5%. Results revealed that 55% and 71% of respondents reported ureteral stent insertion after rtURS more than 75% of the time for ureteral and renal stones, respectively. Reporting stent insertion following more than 75% of rtURS was more common among US participants for both ureteral and renal stones. Overall, reported cost knowledge was high, but lower among US participants. On multivariable analysis, US respondents were more likely to place ureteral stents after rtURS for ureteral stones more than 75% of the time when compared to those abroad (OR 3.43 p < 0.01)., Conclusion: Ureteral stenting after rtURS is over utilized in the US compared to other countries. While this phenomenon is multifactorial in nature, cost knowledge may be under recognized as a determinant of ureteral stent placement following rtURS.

Objectives: To compare the performance and surgical outcomes of two different single-use digital flexible ureteroscopes with a reusable video flexible ureteroscope., Methods: Patients undergoing retrograde flexible ureteroscopy at Nepean Hospital, Sydney, Australia, were included in this study. Three different flexible ureteroscopes were used in this study: (i) single-use digital LithoVue (Boston Scientific, Marlborough, MA, USA); (ii) single-use digital PU3022A (Pusen, Zhuhai, China); and (iii) reusable digital URF-V2 (Olympus, Tokyo, Japan). Visibility and maneuverability was rated on a 5-point Likert scale by the operating surgeon. Operative outcomes and complications were collected and analyzed., Results: A total of 150 patients were included in the present study. Of these, 141 patients had ureteroscopy for stone treatment, four for endoscopic combined intrarenal surgery and five for diagnostic/tumor treatment. There were 55 patients in the LithoVue group, 31 in the PU3022A group and 64 patients in the Olympus URF-V2 group. The URF-V2 group had higher visibility scores than both the single-use scopes and higher maneuverability scores when compared with the PU3022A. The LithoVue had higher visibility and maneuverability scores when compared with the PU3022A. There were no differences in operative time, rates of relook flexible ureteroscopes, scope failure or complication rates observed., Conclusions: Single-use digital flexible ureteroscopes have visibility and maneuverability profiles approaching that of a reusable digital flexible ureteroscope. Single-use flexible ureteroscopes achieve similar clinical outcomes to the more expensive reusable versions., (© 2019 The Japanese Urological Association.)

Purpose: To critically review all literature concerning the cost-effectiveness of flexible ureteroscopy comparing single-use with reusable scopes., Materials and Methods: A systematic online literature review was performed in PubMed, Embase and Google Scholar databases. All factors potentially affecting surgical costs or clinical outcomes were considered. Prospective assessments, case control and case series studies were included., Results: 741 studies were found. Of those, 18 were duplicated and 77 were not related to urology procedures. Of the remaining 646 studies, 59 were considered of relevance and selected for further analysis. Stone free and complication rates were similar between single-use and reusable scopes. Operative time was in average 20% shorter with digital scopes, single-use or not. Reusable digital scopes seem to last longer than optic ones, though scope longevity is very variable worldwide. New scopes usually last four times more than refurbished ones and single-use ureterorenoscopes have good resilience throughout long cases. Longer scope longevity is achieved with Cidex and if a dedicated nurse takes care of the sterilization process. The main surgical factors that negatively impact device longevity are lower pole pathologies, large stone burden and non-use of a ureteral access sheath. We have built a comprehensive fi nancial costeffective decision model to fl exible ureteroscope acquisition., Conclusions: The cost-effectiveness of a fl exible ureteroscopy program is dependent of several aspects. We have developed a equation to allow a literature-based and adaptable decision model to every interested stakeholder. Disposable devices are already a reality and will progressively become the standard as manufacturing price falls., Competing Interests: None declared., (Copyright® by the International Brazilian Journal of Urology.)

Diagnosis, treatment, and follow-up are all influential in determining the overall cost to the health care system for kidney stones. New innovations in the field of nephrolithiasis have been abundant, including disposable ureteroscopes, ultrasound-guided approaches to percutaneous nephrolithotomy, and advanced laser lithotripters. Identifying cost-effective treatment strategies encourages practitioners to be thoughtful about providing value-based high-quality care and remains on important principle in the treatment of urinary stone disease., (Copyright © 2018 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objective: To determine the most cost-effective approach to the management of distal ureteral stones in children given the potential for recurrent renal colic during a trial of passage versus potential stent discomfort and complications of ureteroscopy., Methods: We developed a decision tree to project costs and clinical outcomes associated with observation, medical explusive therapy (MET), and ureteroscopy for the management of an index patient with a 4-mm-distal ureteral stone. We determined which strategy would be least costly and offer the most pain-free days within 30days of diagnosis. We performed a one-way sensitivity analysis on the probability of successful stone passage with MET. We obtained probabilities from the literature and costs from the 2016 Pediatric Health Information System Database., Results: Ureteroscopy was the costliest strategy but maximized the number of pain-free days within 30days of diagnosis ($5282/29 pain-free days). MET was less costly than ureteroscopy but also less effective ($615/21.8 pain-free days). Observation cost more than MET and was also less effective ($2139/15.5 pain-free days). The one-way sensitivity analysis on the probability of successful stone passage with MET demonstrated that ureteroscopy always has the highest net monetary benefits value and is therefore the recommended strategy given a fixed willingness-to-pay., Discussion: Using a rigorous decision-science approach, we found that ureteroscopy is the recommended strategy in children with small distal ureteral stones. Although it costs more than MET, it resulted in more pain-free days in the first 30days following diagnosis given the faster resolution of the stone episode., (Copyright © 2019 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Flexible ureteroscopy has become an important tool in the urologist's armamentarium. Until recently, reusable ureteroscopes were the only tools available to perform ureteroscopy. However, in recent years, single-use flexible and semirigid ureteroscopes have been developed as an alternative to reusable ureteroscopes. These disposable ureteroscopes were designed to mitigate problems associated with the use of reusable ureteroscopes, including the high costs related to ureteroscope acquisition, maintenance, processing, sterilization, and repairs. In this review, we provide an overview of currently available single-use flexible ureteroscopes, which include LithoVue, Uscope, NeoFlex, and Shaogang, as well as the Neoscope semirigid ureteroscope. The functional capabilities (deflection, irrigation, and optical properties) of each ureteroscope are also discussed.

Aims: We aimed to evaluate the durability and cost effectiveness of the latest digital flexible ureterescope by comparing it with the conventional fiberoptic one., Materials and Methods: Data of patients who underwent retrograde intrarenal surgery between January 2013 and December 2014 were collected. Fiberoptic Flex-X2 or digital Cobra vision flexible ureteroscopes were used for the procedures. The comparison of both ureteroscopes was performed in terms of patient and stone characteristics, operative outcomes, durability, and cost effectiveness., Results: A total of 105 patients were evaluated for the study. The patient and stone characteristics and operative outcomes were similar between the groups. Overall, 54 and 51 procedures were performed using Flex-X2 and Cobra vision, respectively, before they were sent for renovation. The purchase prices were USD 29,500 for Flex-X2 and USD 58,000 for Cobra vision. Costs of per case were determined as USD 549.29 for Flex-X2 and as USD 1,137.25 for Cobra vision. Per minute working time costs were USD 772.04 and 1,471.33 for Flex-X2 and Cobra vision respectively., Conclusions: The digital Cobra vision has high costs without any difference in durability as compared to Flex-X2. Moreover, it has no benefit over Flex-X2 in terms of surgical outcomes., (© 2018 S. Karger AG, Basel.)

Purpose: To explore regional adoption of ureteroscopy (URS) over extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy (SWL) in the state of California (CA) and to identify factors associated with this adoption over time., Materials and Methods: We used the California Office of Statewide Health Planning and Development (OSHPD) public data to identify URS and SWL procedures performed for renal and ureteral stones from 2005 to 2016. The level of analysis was the region wherein each procedure was performed, defined by the 19 CA labor market regions. OSHPD data were supplemented with the Area Health Resource File to provide information on regional characteristics. Generalized linear regression was used to determine procedural rates adjusted for age, gender and race. Choropleth time series maps were used to illustrate adoption of URS by region over time., Results: A total of 328,795 URS and SWL procedures were identified from 2005 to 2016. The number of URS procedures surpassed the number of SWL procedures in 2011. Fourteen regions became URS predominant by 2016 and were characterized as having a higher per capita income, higher percentages with a college education and lower percentage of female heads-of-household (all p-values <0.05). A higher percentage of patients in these regions were male and had private or Medicare insurance (p = 0.03 for both)., Conclusions: From 2005 to 2016, most CA regions adopted URS as the primary renal and ureteral stone management strategy. These regions demonstrated characteristics of higher socioeconomic status compared to regions that remained SWL predominant. A better understanding of such differences in practice patterns will allow urologists to better negotiate for the capital expenditures required to conform to evolving standards of care and allow patients the ability to make more informed decisions on where they receive care.

Introduction: A rising incidence of kidney stone disease has led to an increase in ureteroscopy (URS) and shock wave lithotripsy (SWL). Our aim was to compare the cost of URS and SWL for treatment of stones., Methods: A systematic review and meta-analysis based on Cochrane and PRISMA standards was conducted for all studies reporting on comparative cost of treatment between URS and SWL. The cost calculation was based on factual data presented in the individual studies as reported by the authors. English language articles from January 2001 to December 2017 using Medline, PubMed, EMBASE, CINAHL, Cochrane library and Google Scholar were selected. Our study was registered with PROSPERO (International prospective register of systematic reviews)-registration number CRD 42017080350., Results: A total of 12 studies involving 2012 patients (SWL-1243, URS-769) were included after initial identification and screening of 725 studies with further assessment of 27 papers. The mean stone size was 10 and 11 mm for SWL and URS, respectively, with stone location in the proximal ureter (n = 8 studies), distal ureter (n = 1), all locations in the ureter (n = 1) and in the kidney (n = 2). Stone free rates (84 vs. 60%) were favourable for URS compared to SWL (p < 0.001). Complication rates (23 vs. 30%) were non-significantly in favor of SWL (p = 0.11) whereas re-treatment rates (11 vs. 27%) were non-significantly in favor of URS (p = 0.29). Mean overall cost was significantly lower for URS ($2801) compared to SWL ($3627) (p = 0.03). The included studies had high risk of bias overall. On sub-analysis, URS was significantly cost-effective for both stones  < 10 and  ≥ 10 mm and for proximal ureteric stones., Conclusion: There is limited evidence to suggest that URS is less expensive than SWL. However, due to lack of standardization, studies seem to be contradictory and further randomized studies are needed to address this issue.

The purpose of this study is to analyze clinical outcomes and costs of single-use flexible ureterorenoscopes in comparison with reusable flexible ureterorenoscopes in a tertiary referral center. Prospectively, 68 flexible ureterorenoscopies utilizing reusable (Flex-X2S, Flex-X C , Karl Storz) and 68 applying single-use flexible ureterorenoscopes (LithoVue, Boston Scientific) were collected. Clinical outcome parameters such as overall success rate, complication rates according to Clavien-Dindo, operation time and radiation exposure time were measured. Cost analysis was based on purchase costs and recurrent costs for repair and reprocessing divided by number of procedures. In each group 68 procedures were available for evaluation. In 91% of reusable and 88% of single-use ureterorenoscopies stone disease was treated with a mean stone burden of 101 ± 226 and 90 ± 244 mm 2 and lower pole involvement in 47 and 41%, respectively (p > 0.05). Comparing clinical outcomes of reusable vs. single-use instruments revealed no significant difference for overall success rates (81 vs. 87%), stone-free rates (82 vs. 85%), operation time (76.2 ± 46.8 vs. 76.8 ± 40.2 min), radiation exposure time (3.83 ± 3.15 vs. 3.93 ± 4.43 min) and complication rates (7 vs. 17%) (p > 0.05). A wide range of repair and purchase costs resulted in total to $1212-$1743 per procedure for reusable ureterorenoscopy whereas price of single-use ureterorenoscopy was $1300-$3180 per procedure. The current work provided evidence for equal clinical effectiveness of reusable and single-use flexible ureterorenoscopes. Partially overlapping ranges of costs for single-use and reusable scopes stress the importance to precisely know the expenses and caseload when negotiating purchase prices, repair prices and warranty conditions.

Introduction: The Moses technology of the holmium laser has been shown to decrease retropulsion in the ureter and procedural time in kidney stones during laser lithotripsy. Theoretically, these improvements could lead to cost savings for the patient., Materials and Methods: All patients with total laser energy data recorded who underwent ureteroscopy with laser lithotripsy by a single surgeon at a tertiary care center were included. Total lasing time was calculated from the total laser energy. Sub-analyses were done on stone size and stone composition. The procedure time using Moses technology was projected to be approximately 35% less than procedure time without the Moses technology based on prior in vitro studies. The projected cost savings was then utilized to predict cost-effectiveness of the Moses technology., Results: Forty patients underwent ureteroscopy with laser lithotripsy. Mean stones size was 10.2 mm and mean lasing time was 3.02 minutes. Linear regression showed a positive association between stone size and laser time, p = 0.01. There was no significant correlation between stone composition or stone Hounsfield units and lasing time. On cost analyses, for stones of all sizes the Moses system has a price differential of an increase in $292.36 when compared to the standard Holmium TracTip system. Specifically for stones larger than 10 mm, the price differential is an increase in $253.16 for the Moses technology., Conclusion: The decrease in lasing time achieved by the Moses system does not translate into sufficient cost savings to off-set the higher cost of the laser fiber and software.

Background: Urinary stone disease is very common with an estimated prevalence among the general population of 2-3%. Ureteric stones are associated with severe pain as they pass through the urinary tract and have significant impact on patients' quality of life due to the detrimental effect on their ability to work and need for hospitalisation. Most ureteric stones can be expected to pass spontaneously with supportive care. However, between one-fifth and one-third of cases require an intervention. The two standard active intervention options are extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy (ESWL) and ureteroscopic stone retrieval. ESWL and ureteroscopy are effective in terms of stone clearance; however, they differ in terms of invasiveness, anaesthetic requirement, treatment setting, complications, patient-reported outcomes (e.g. pain after intervention, time off work) and cost. There is uncertainty around which is the most clinically effective in terms of stone clearance and the true cost to the NHS and to society (in terms of impact on patient-reported health and economic burden). The aim of this trial is to determine whether, in adults with ureteric stones, judged to require active intervention, ESWL is not inferior and is more cost-effective compared to ureteroscopic treatment as the initial management option., Methods: The TISU study is a pragmatic multicentre non-inferiority randomised controlled trial of ESWL as the first treatment option compared with direct progression to ureteroscopic treatment for ureteric stones. Patients aged over 16 years with a ureteric stone confirmed by non-contrast computed tomography of the kidney, ureter and bladder (CTKUB) will be randomised to either ESWL or ureteroscopy. The primary clinical outcome is resolution of the stone episode (no further intervention required to facilitate stone clearance) up to six months from randomisation. The primary economic outcome is the incremental cost per quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) gained at six months from randomisation., Discussion: Determining whether ESWL is not inferior clinically and is cost-effective compared to ureteroscopic treatment as the initial management in adults with ureteric stones who are judged to require active treatment is relevant not only to patients and clinicians but also to healthcare providers, both in the UK and globally., Trial Registration: ISRCTN registry, ISRCTN92289221 . Registered on 21 February 2013.

Objective: To assess and measure the capability of a single-use disposable digital flexible ureteroscope, the LithoVue™ (Boston Scientific, Marlborough, MA, USA), and to assess if there is a benefit to switching to single-use scopes., Patients and Methods: The LithoVue was compared to two commonly used reusable flexible ureteroscopes (Olympus URF-V [Olympus, Tokyo, Japan] and Karl Storz Flex-X c [Karl Storz & Co. KG, Tuttlingen, Germany]) ex vivo. An analysis of reusable ureteroscope usage was performed to evaluate damage, durability, and maintenance costs. This was then compared to the projected costs of using single-use disposable scopes., Results: Flexion, deflection and irrigation flow of the LithoVue was equivalent, if not better than the reusable flexible ureteroscopes. An analysis of 234 procedures with seven new Olympus URF-V scopes, revealed 15 scope damages. Staghorn stones and lower pole/mid-zone stones were significant risk factors for damage (P = 0.014). Once damage occurred it was likely to occur again. Total repair costs were $162 628 (Australian dollars) (£92 411 in Great British pounds), the mean cost per case was $695 (£395). Factoring in the purchase cost, cleaning and repair costs, the cumulative cost of 28 reusable flexible ureteroscopy procedures was ~$50 000 (£28 412). If the LithoVue was priced at $1 200 (£682), switching to a single-use scope would cost ~$35 000 (£19 888)., Conclusion: The LithoVue is analogous to reusable flexible ureteroscopes in regard to standard technical metrics. Depending on its purchase cost it may also represent a cost saving for hospitals when compared to the cumulative costs of maintaining reusable scopes. Additionally, urologist may consider using the scope in cases in which reusable scope damage is anticipated., (© 2018 The Authors BJU International © 2018 BJU International Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Purpose: To help rein in surgical spending there is growing interest in the application of payment bundles to common outpatient procedures like ureteroscopy and shock wave lithotripsy. However, before urologists can move to such a payment system they need to know where episode costs are concentrated., Materials and Methods: Using claims data from Michigan Value Collaborative we identified patients who underwent ureteroscopy or shock wave lithotripsy at hospitals in Michigan from 2012 to 2015. We then totaled expenditures for all relevant services during the 30-day surgical episodes of these patients and categorized component payments (ie those for the index procedure, subsequent hospitalizations, professional services and postacute care). Finally we quantified the variation in total episode expenditures for ureteroscopy and shock wave lithotripsy across hospitals, examining drivers of this variation., Results: A total of 9,449 ureteroscopy and 6,446 shock wave lithotripsy procedures were performed at 62 hospitals. Among these hospitals there was threefold variation in ureteroscopy and shock wave lithotripsy spending. The index procedure accounted for the largest payment difference between high vs low cost hospitals (ureteroscopy $7,936 vs $4,995 and shock wave lithotripsy $4,832 vs $3,207, each p <0.01), followed by payments for postacute care (ureteroscopy $2,207 vs $1,711 and shock wave lithotripsy $2,138 vs $1,104, each p <0.01). Across hospitals the index procedure explained 68% and 44% of the variation in episode spending for ureteroscopy and shock wave lithotripsy, and postacute care payments explained 15% and 28%, respectively., Conclusions: There exists substantial variation in ambulatory surgical spending across Michigan hospitals for urinary stone episodes. Most of this variation can be explained by payment differences for the index procedure and for postacute care services., (Copyright © 2018 American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Introduction: Reusable ureteroscope durability and need for repair are significant sources of expense and inefficiency for patients and urologists. Utilization of LithoVue™, a disposable flexible digital ureteroscope, may address some of these concerns. To identify its economic impact on clinical care, we performed a micro-cost comparison between flexible reusable fiberoptic ureteroscopes (URF-P6™) and LithoVue., Patients and Methods: For this prospective, single-center micro-costing study, all consecutive ureteroscopies performed during 1 week each in July and August 2016 utilized either URF-P6 or LithoVue ureteroscopes respectively. Workflow data were collected, including intraoperative events, postoperative reprocessing cycle timing, consumables usage, and ureteroscope cost data., Results: Intraoperative data analysis showed mean total operating room time for URF-P6 and LithoVue cases were 93.4 ± 32.3 and 73.6 ± 17.4 minutes, respectively (p = 0.093). Mean cost of operating room usage per case was calculated at $1618.72 ± 441.39 for URF-P6 and $1348.64 ± 237.40 for LithoVue based on institutional cost rates exclusive of disposables. Postoperative data analysis revealed costs of $107.27 for labor and consumables during reprocessing for URF-P6 cases. The costs of ureteroscope repair and capital acquisition for each URF-P6 case were $957.71 and $116.02, respectively. The total ureteroscope cost per case for URF-P6 and LithoVue were $2799.72 and $2852.29, respectively., Conclusions: Micro-cost analysis revealed that the cost of LithoVue acquisition is higher per case compared to reusable fiberoptic ureteroscopes, but savings are realized in labor, consumables, and repair. When accounting for these factors, the total cost per case utilizing these two ureteroscopes were comparable.

Objective: The increasing number of flexible ureterorenoscopy (fURS) procedures, the fragility of devices, and their growing maintenance and repair costs represent a substantial burden for urologic departments. Disposable single-use fURS devices offer many advantages over reusable fURS. Among them, the LithoVue™ model shows the best clinical utility. In our study, we assessed the economic aspects of reusable fURS application compared with the potential costs and benefits of single-use fURS (LithoVue™). Indications for single-use fURS were proposed based on potential risk factors of reusable fURS damage., Materials and Methods: This single-center retrospective analysis compared the actual cost of reusable fURS procedures with the potential costs of LithoVue™ based on the price offered by the manufacturer. Consecutive case analysis of damaged fURS was performed to determine potential risk factors associated with fURS damage., Results: The study group consisted of 423 reusable fURS procedures conducted between January 2013 and December 2016. During this period, 102 (24.11%) diagnostic fURS and 321 (75.89%) fURS for kidney stone therapy were performed. In 32 of 423 (7.57%) fURS cases, devices were postoperatively deemed defective, 9 of which were used for diagnostic procedures (9/102; 8.82%), 7 for stone removal (7/148; 4.73%), and 16 for stone removal and laser (Ho:YAG) application (16/173; 9.25%). The average cost per reusable fURS procedure was found to be €503.26., Conclusions: Disposable fURS is a more expensive option for high-volume centers. Based on our case analysis, laser disintegration treatment of multiple, large stones in the lower kidney pole of recurrent stone formers, as well as a steep infundibulopelvic angle (IPA ≤50°), seems to be the main risk factor for fURS damage. For these cases, disposable fURS may be a cost-effective alternative; however, a prospective comparison of economic outcomes between disposable and reusable fURS, together with confirmation of the proposed damage risk factors, is needed.

Purpose: Careful decontamination and sterilization of reusable flexible ureteroscopes used in ureterorenoscopy cases prevent the spread of infectious pathogens to patients and technicians. However, inefficient reprocessing and unavailability of ureteroscopes sent out for repair can contribute to expensive operating room (OR) delays. Time-driven activity-based costing (TDABC) was applied to describe the time and costs involved in reprocessing., Materials and Methods: Direct observation and timing were performed for all steps in reprocessing of reusable flexible ureteroscopes following operative procedures. Estimated times needed for each step by which damaged ureteroscopes identified during reprocessing are sent for repair were characterized through interviews with purchasing analyst staff. Process maps were created for reprocessing and repair detailing individual step times and their variances. Cost data for labor and disposables used were applied to calculate per minute and average step costs., Results: Ten ureteroscopes were followed through reprocessing. Process mapping for ureteroscope reprocessing averaged 229.0 ± 74.4 minutes, whereas sending a ureteroscope for repair required an estimated 143 minutes per repair. Most steps demonstrated low variance between timed observations. Ureteroscope drying was the longest and highest variance step at 126.5 ± 55.7 minutes and was highly dependent on manual air flushing through the ureteroscope working channel and ureteroscope positioning in the drying cabinet. Total costs for reprocessing totaled $96.13 per episode, including the cost of labor and disposable items., Conclusions: Utilizing TDABC delineates the full spectrum of costs associated with ureteroscope reprocessing and identifies areas for process improvement to drive value-based care. At our institution, ureteroscope drying was one clearly identified target area. Implementing training in ureteroscope drying technique could save up to 2 hours per reprocessing event, potentially preventing expensive OR delays.

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 (10-20 mm) in a large tertiary referral center., Patients and Methods: Consecutive patients treated for solitary LP stones (10-20 mm) 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 patient choice. "Success" was defined as stone free and/or clinically insignificant stone fragments (≤3 mm) 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) than for FURS (£1261) or PCNL (£2658) (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.

Introduction: The increasing use of flexible ureteroscopy (USSR) sets the cost problems inevitably associated with the fragility of these endoscopes. The aim of this work is to clear from a recent example (universitary hospital) results, costs during the implementation of this technique., Material and Methods: This is a retrospective study conducted from December 2012 (date of introduction of the activity) in March 2015 concerning the USSR made in a French universitary hospital for stone disease. In this analysis, the cost of consumables was not evaluated, nor the costs of the operating theater or hospitalization., Results: One hundred forty-one hundred and thirteen patients USSR were conducted by seven surgeons. Seventeen breakages and failures have been identified and have led to the sending of the endoscope for repair. Breakage rate and failure was 12%. All failures were treated with a standard exchange of the device (including 4 standard exchanges made under warranty). The estimated average cost of outages was 3600 euros. This represents an average cost per procedure of about 625 euros (acquisition plus cost of failures) without counting the costs of sterilization or high-level disinfection. The impossibility of relocating the lower calyx stones is associated with an excess risk of breakage (odd ratio: 2.92 CI95: [1.02; 8.37])., Conclusion: This study is novel because it focuses on the cost of implementing a technique in a French university hospital. The use of flexible ureteroscope to unique uses might be an interesting source of savings in the implementation of this technique. This remains to be evaluated., Level of Evidence: 5., (Copyright © 2017 Elsevier Masson SAS. All rights reserved.)

Objective: To evaluate the outcome and the costs of stenting in uncomplicated semirigid ureteroscopic stone removal., Materials and Methods: A decision tree model was created to evaluate the economic impact of routine stenting versus non-stenting strategies in uncomplicated ureteroscopy (URS). Probabilities of complications were extracted from twelve randomized controlled trials. Stone removal costs, costs for complication management, and total costs were calculated using Treeage Pro (TreeAge Pro Healthcare version 2015, Software, Inc, Williamstown Massachusetts, USA)., Results: Stone removal costs were higher in stented URS (€1512.25 vs. €1681.21, respectively). Complication management costs were higher in non-stented procedures. Both for complications treated conservatively (€189.43 vs. €109.67) and surgically (€49.26 vs. €24.83). When stone removal costs, costs for stent removal, and costs for complication management were considered, uncomplicated URS with stent placement yielded an overall cost per patient of €1889.15 compared to €1750.94 without stent placement. The incremental costs of stented URS were €138.25 per procedure., Conclusion: Semirigid URS with stent placement leads to higher direct procedural costs. Costs for managing URS-related complications are higher in non-stented procedures. Overall, a standard strategy of deferring routine stenting uncomplicated ureteroscopic stone removal is more cost efficient.

We have assembled a three-step process for securing and presetting the functional length of the laser fiber to be used for ureteroscopic lithotripsy. For this process, three components are required: a sterile piece of adhesive, an empty guidewire casing with a pre-attached Luer-Lok™ fitting, and a SureSeal ® adapter. The only additional piece of equipment for this arrangement not routinely used during ureteroscopy is the sterile adhesive strip.

Purpose: Questions remain regarding the durability and longevity of flexible ureteroscopes. The objective of this study was to estimate the potential economic benefits of single use, flexible digital ureteroscopes compared to our recent experience with reusable flexible digital ureteroscopes using cost-benefit analysis., Materials and Methods: Ureteroscopic procedures were prospectively recorded over the 12-month period of February 2014 to February 2015. All flexible ureteroscopies were performed using Flex X C digital ureteroscopes (Karl Storz Endoscopy-America, El Segundo, California). Cost assessment was based on the original purchasing cost and repair-exchange fees divided by the number of cases. An algorithm was created to include per case reprocessing costs and calculate the benefit-to-cost ratio. This cost was compared to potential costs of the LithoVue™, a single use digital ureteroscope., Results: In 160 cases a flexible reusable ureteroscope was used. There was damage to 11 ureteroscopes during this time with an average of 12.5 cases to failure. Excluding original purchasing costs, the cost analysis revealed an amortized cost of $848.10 per use. After 99 ureteroscope cases the cost-benefit analysis favored reusable ureteroscopes compared to disposable ureteroscopes., Conclusions: Digital ureteroscopes are the latest trend in the evolution of endourology. It appears that a disposable ureteroscope may be cost beneficial at centers with a lower case volume per year. However, institutions with a high volume of cases may find reusable ureteroscopes cost beneficial., (Copyright © 2017 American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Context: The recent evolution of management options for urolithiasis has presented a unique dilemma for the modern urologist. A comprehensive understanding of epidemiological trends along with current provider preferences in treating urinary stones would be beneficial., Objective: To review trends in the prevalence, treatments, and costs of urolithiasis worldwide., Evidence Acquisition: A literature review was performed using the MEDLINE database, the Cochrane Library Central search facility, Web of Science, and Google Scholar between 1986 and 2016. Keywords used for the search were "urolithiasis" and "prevalence; treatment; and cost"., Evidence Synthesis: The incidence and prevalence of urinary stones are rising around the world, including regions that have historically had low rates of urolithiasis. Common theories explaining this trend involve climate warming, dietary changes, and obesity. Shockwave lithotripsy (SWL) has been the preferred mode of treatment since its introduction in the 1980s. However, ureteroscopy (URS) has become increasingly popular for small stones regardless of location because of lower recurrence rates and costs. Developing countries have been slower to adopt URS technology and continue to use percutaneous nephrolithotomy at a steady rate., Conclusions: URS has recently challenged SWL as the treatment modality preferred for small upper urinary tract stones. In some cases it is less expensive but still highly effective. As the burden of stone disease increases worldwide, appropriate selection of stone removal therapies will continue to play an important role and will thus require further investigation., Patient Summary: Urinary stones are becoming more prevalent. Recent advances in technology have improved the management of this disease and have decreased costs., (Copyright © 2017 European Association of Urology. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Context: Retrograde intrarenal surgery has gained substantial popularity worldwide thanks to continuous improvements in technology and techniques, and is now considered one of the first-line treatment options for active removal of renal stones., Objective: To provide a comprehensive synthesis of the main evidences in literature on the current management of kidney stones by means of retrograde intrarenal surgery (RIRS)., Evidence Acquisition: A review of literature has been conducted using search string "retrograde intrarenal surgery OR flexible ureteroscop* OR ureterorenoscop*", without any language restriction; PubMed, Embase, and Scopus databases were searched in November 2016. Exclusion criteria involved manuscripts dealing with paediatric patients, and RIRS for proximal ureteric stones and for upper tract urothelial tumours. Fifty-seven papers were finally included in the analysis., Evidence Synthesis: Technological progress focuses on the miniaturisation of disposables and scopes, as well as on the increase of durability and improvement of the quality of image provided by these instruments. The technique has been in continuous development following the progress in technology. Currently, the main target of RIRS are renal stones 1-2cm in size, even though tertiary centres are pushing the boundaries to the treatment of larger stones. Nomograms predicting surgical outcomes and improving preoperative surgical planning have been developed. RIRS has been shown to be safe and effective in patients with specific conditions such as bleeding diathesis, anatomical malformation, or pregnancy. Cost effectiveness of the approach is still a matter of controversy when compared with other treatment modalities., Conclusions: RIRS is a well-established procedure under constant evolution with advances in technique and technology. It has gained worldwide popularity due to its minimal invasiveness and satisfactory outcomes. Future developments are needed to increase its cost effectiveness and extend its use to a wider range of indications., Patient Summary: In this collaborative review, we have summarised the best evidence in literature with respect to current management of renal stones by means of retrograde intrarenal surgery (RIRS) with flexible ureteroscopy. RIRS has been shown to be a safe and effective treatment modality in a wide spectrum of clinical scenarios; technology and technique are continuously evolving to further push boundaries of its indications and efficacy., (Copyright © 2017 European Association of Urology. All rights reserved.)

Purpose: To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of shockwave lithotripsy (SWL) versus ureteroscopic lithotripsy (URS) for patients with ureteral stones less than 1.5 cm in diameter., Methods: Patient age, stone diameter, stone location, and stone-free status were recorded for patients treated with SWL or URS for ureteral stones under 1.5 cm over a 1 year period. Institutional charges were obtained from in-house billing. A decision analysis model was constructed to compare the cost-effectiveness of SWL and URS using our results and success rates for modeling. Three separate models were created to reflect differing practice patterns., Results: A total of 113 patients were included-51 underwent SWL and 62 underwent URS as primary treatment. Single procedure stone-free rates for SWL and URS were 47.1 and 88.7 %, respectively (p < 0.002). Decision analysis modeling demonstrated cost-effectiveness of SWL when SWL single procedure stone-free rates (SFR) were greater than or equal to 60-64 % or when URS single procedure SFRs were less than or equal to 57-76 %, depending on practice patterns., Conclusions: This retrospective study revealed superior SFR for ureteral stones less than 1.5 cm treated with URS compared to SWL. Our decision analysis model demonstrated that when SFR for SWL is less than 60-64 % or is greater than 57-76 % for URS, SWL is not a cost-effective treatment option. Based on these findings, careful stratification and selection of stone patients may enable surgeons to increase the cost-effectiveness of SWL.

Ureteroscopy (URS) is the first line treatment for the majority of symptomatic renal and ureteral stones. This review summarizes the current literature on the costs associated with URS. A high initial investment is required for scope acquisition. Once purchased, maintenance and repair costs continue to accrue. Durability of the scopes is an important consideration as more durable scopes will remain functional for longer and thus have lower overall repair costs. Currently available, newer generation scopes appear highly durable compared to their predecessors. Ancillary equipment, mostly disposable items represent the highest per procedure cost of URS. Despite these costs, URS remains highly profitable. However, it is also efficacious demonstrating superior cost-effectiveness with higher stone free rates at a lower cost relative to shock wave lithotripsy.

Purpose: The aim of this study is to assess the effectiveness, safety, and reproducibility of the micro-ureteroscopy (m-URS) in the treatment of distal ureteral stones in women., Materials and Methods: A multicenter, prospective observational study was designed and conducted between March and December 2015. We included women having at least one stone in the distal ureter and being a candidate for surgical treatment using the 4.85F sheath of MicroPerc ® . Patients with clinical criteria and/or laboratory analysis indicating sepsis or coagulation alteration were excluded., Results: Thirty-nine women were operated in eight hospitals. The profile of the patients was fairly homogeneous among hospitals. Only differences were found in age, preoperative stent, and the result of the previous urine culture. Immediate stone-free status was achieved in 88.2% and 100% 7 days after the procedure. 97.4% of patients did not present any complication in the postoperative period, with only one case with complication Clavien II. Postureteroscopic Lesion Scale (PULS) in 76.9% of patients did not show any injury, 20.5% had lesions grade 1, and grade 2 lesions 2.6%. As for the reproducibility of m-URS between hospitals, statistical analysis of the results showed differences between all the centers participating in the study., Conclusions: m-URS is an effective, safe, and reproducible technique that minimizes surgical aggression to the ureteral anatomy. Satisfactory and comparable results to "conventional" ureteroscopy were obtained in the treatment of distal ureteral stones in women, although clinical trials are needed. The reduction of the ureteral damage may reduce secondary procedures and increase the cost-effectiveness of the procedure.

Introduction: The frequency of flexible ureteroscopy has increased with the introduction of improved instrumentation. Ureteroscopes allow increased endoscopic access to the ureter and kidney. However, maintenance and repair of scopes may increase the total procedure expense., Methods: In 3 years (8/2011-7/2014), 655 flexible ureteroscopies were performed at a single-specialty, urology, ambulatory surgery center. Procedures were performed by 26 board-certified urologists using four Olympus URF P5 flexible ureteroscopes. The instruments were handled by a single team and sterilized through the STERIS System E1. Repairs were performed by the manufacturer on an as needed basis. Patient records were reviewed to determine the preoperative diagnosis, operative time, location and size of the stone, and use of laser or ureteral sheath. The occurrence, nature of flexible ureteroscope damage, and cost of repairs were evaluated., Results: Of the ureteroscopies performed, 78% was for the treatment of calculi (50.1% in the kidney). Mean stone size was 8.5 ± 0.2 mm, with larger stones (11 mm) located in the kidney. The flexible ureteroscope was advanced over a guidewire (88% of cases); a laser fiber was introduced in 70%, and a ureteral sheath was used in 13.4%. Mean procedure time was 40 minutes. The most common reasons for ureteroscope repair were cloudy lens (16 repairs) and broken optic fibers (9 repairs). There were 31 repairs during the study period (average 21 cases per repair). Flexible ureteroscopes were out of service for an average of 11 days per repair (range 3-20). The total cost of repairs was $233,150 or ∼$7521 per repair. The average repair cost per flexible ureteroscopy performed was $355., Conclusions: Expenses associated with instrument repair can significantly impact a procedure's net revenue, thus efforts should be made to minimize instrument breakage. The expense of repairing a flexible ureteroscope per procedure can be significant and needs to be considered when pricing this procedure.

Purpose of Review: Ureteral access sheath (UAS) became increasingly popular worldwide. However, the safety of its routine use remains controversial. The aim of the current revision is to provide a systematic review on the benefits and disadvantages of the UAS., Recent Findings: A systematic review was performed following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses criteria. Two reviewers independently searched the literature, finally identifying 20 articles valuable for this review. The use of UAS demonstrated several advantages to facilitate retrograde intrarenal access, lower intrarenal pressure, protect the ureter, protect the scope, and expedite stone extraction. Despite this, there is also some evidence that UAS use may be associated with acute ureteral injury and long-term complications, apparently related to maneuvers for UAS insertion and mucosal or deeper layers of injury and ischemia. Furthermore, there are still pending questions on the possible increase in stone-free rates, and decrease in operative time and costs., Summary: Although the use of UAS is associated with some risk and limiting factors, it appears from this systematic review that its use is common and safe for the retrograde intrarenal access. Therefore, UAS is highly recommended for the treatment of upper tract disease by means of retrograde intrarenal surgery.

Objective: The purpose of this study was to determine the cost-effectiveness of serial stenting vs ureteroscopy for treatment of urolithiasis during pregnancy as a function of gestational age (GA) at diagnosis., Study Design: We built decision analytic models for a hypothetical cohort of pregnant women who had received a diagnosis of symptomatic ureteral calculi and compared serial stenting to ureteroscopy. We assumed ureteral stent replacement every 4 weeks during pregnancy, intravenous sedation for stent placement, and spinal anesthetic for ureteroscopy. Outcomes were derived from the literature and included stent infection, migration, spontaneous kidney stone passage, ureteral injury, failed ureteroscopy, postoperative urinary tract infection, sepsis, and anesthetic complications. Four separate analyses were run based on the GA at diagnosis of urolithiasis. Using direct costs and quality-adjusted life years, we reported the incremental costs and effectiveness of each strategy based on GA at kidney stone diagnosis and calculated the net monetary benefit. We performed 1-way and Monte-Carlo sensitivity analyses to assess the strength of the model., Results: Ureteroscopy was less costly and more effective for urolithiasis, irrespective of GA at diagnosis. The incremental cost of ureteroscopy increased from -$74,469 to -$7631, and the incremental effectiveness decreased from 0.49 to 0.05 quality-adjusted life years for a kidney stone diagnosed at 12 and 36 weeks of gestation, respectively. The net monetary benefit of ureteroscopy progressively decreased for kidney stones that were diagnosed later in pregnancy. The model was robust to all variables., Conclusion: Ureteroscopy is less costly and more effective relative to serial stenting for urolithiasis, regardless of the GA at diagnosis. Ureteroscopy is most beneficial for women who received the diagnosis early during pregnancy., (Copyright © 2015 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objectives: To investigate the efficacy, safety, and cost-effectiveness of simultaneous ureteroscopic lithotripsy and contralateral percutaneous nephrolithotomy for ureteral calculi combined with contralateral renal staghorn calculi., Methods: The present prospective controlled trial had been registered with the Chinese Clinical Trial Registry (Registration number: ChiCTR-ONRC-13004146). Patients with ureteral calculi and contralateral renal staghorn calculi were enrolled into the staged (ureteroscopic lithotripsy first followed by a staged percutaneous nephrolithotomy) or the simultaneous (synchronous ureteroscopic lithotripsy and contralateral percutaneous nephrolithotomy) treatment group according to the odd or even number of the last hospitalization number. All patients signed informed consent. The primary outcomes were the stone-free rate and total hospital costs. The second outcomes were the operative and anesthesia times, the complication rate, and hospital stay., Results: A total of 51 patients were enrolled into the staged group and 52 patients were enrolled into the simultaneous group. There were no statistically significant differences in patients' characteristics. The overall stone-free rate was 94.1% in the staged group and 92.3% in the simultaneous group. No severe complication was observed. The total hospital stay of the staged group was longer, and it was negatively correlated to different procedures. The cost in the staged group was higher, and it was correlated with total operation time and postoperative hospital stay., Conclusions: Simultaneous ureteroscopic lithotripsy and contralateral percutaneous nephrolithotomy represent safe and effective procedures, and they can be considered as a first-line treatment for selected patients presenting with ureteral calculi combined with contralateral renal calculi., (© 2015 The Japanese Urological Association.)

Background and Purpose: A variety of ureteroscopic irrigation systems are available, ranging from gravity-driven pressure bags to hand-operated pumps. Endoscopic valves maintain a watertight seal during ureteroscopy (URS) while facilitating passage of instruments. The clinical utility and ergonomics of such devices have not been established. We systematically compare the mechanical properties and usability of select valve devices and hand-operated irrigation systems in an in vitro setting., Materials and Methods: In vitro testing of four different endoscopic valves: UroSeal adjustable endoscopic valve (US Urology), adjustable biopsy port seal (Gyrus ACMI), Blue Silicone Seal ACMI CS B612 (Gyrus ACMI), and REF ABP Biopsy Port Seal (ACMI Corporation) was performed. Usability was evaluated via insertion/extraction forces and insertion time for instruments, including a straight tip sensor wire, 0.035″, (Boston Scientific), a laser fiber (Flexiva 200, Boston Scientific), and an Ngage Nitinol Stone Extractor 1.7F (Cook Urological) through a flexible ureteroscope (Olympus URF P5, Olympus). Flow rate, flow time, and user fatigue were tested for two irrigation systems: The single action pumping system (SAP, Boston Scientific) and the Pathfinder Plus (PP, Utah Medical Products)., Results: The US needed the shortest time for both wire insertion and basket insertion (P=0.005, and P<0.001, respectively), while the BSS needed the greatest time for laser fiber insertion (P<0.005). The REF ABP needed the greatest force for withdrawal of the Ngage basket, the laser fiber, and the Captura stone grasper through a closed seal, while the US took the least amount of force for both laser fiber withdrawal and insertion via analysis of variance. Leak point pressure assessment demonstrated that the US was leak free at irrigation pressures up to 200 mm Hg, while the ABP, BSS, and the REF ABP devices demonstrated leaks ranging from 30 to 200 mm Hg. The average and peak flow of the SAP were significantly higher than that of the PP. Mean grip strength decreased significantly after operation of the SAP for 10 minutes, while no loss of grip strength was observed after use of the PP., Conclusions: The US valve has the advantage of facile manipulation of wires and baskets while maintaining a watertight seal, while other devices may be more cost-effective and secure. The PP has the advantage of less operator hand fatigue and ease of use, but the SAPS may allow for greater on-demand pressures. Further studies are needed to evaluate the effect of these irrigation systems on outcomes.

Objective: Retrograde intrarenal surgery (RIRS) involves a minimally invasive stone surgery, lending itself potential to combined spinal-epidural anesthesia (CSEA), although it is performed preferably under general anesthesia (GA). This prospective randomized study was undertaken to evaluate the feasibility and efficacy of CSEA for patients undergoing RIRS., Patients and Methods: Seventy consecutive patients who were scheduled for RIRS were randomized to receive CSEA (n=35) or GA (n=35). Operative time, stone clearance rate, visual analog scale (VAS) of pain, complication rate, anesthetic cost, and hospital stay were compared between the two groups., Results: A total of 65 patients randomized to CSEA (31) or GA (34) completed the study. In the CSEA group, each procedure was completed and there was no anesthetic conversion. Although based on the prospective randomized method, the GA group still had a little larger stone size (p=0.059) and more multiple caliceal stones (p=0.037). Overall, there were no statistically significant differences in operative time (p=0.088), stone fragmentation time (p=0.074), postoperative VAS pain score at 6 and 24 hours (p=0.156, 0.146), incidence of complications (p=0.870), stone-free rate (p=0.804), and hospital stays (p=0.907) between the two groups. The patients in the GA group experienced a higher mean hemoglobin drop (6.5±3.2 vs 8.6±2.7 g/L, p=0.012). In addition, the anesthetic cost was much cheaper in the CSEA group (183.8±31.4 vs 391.9±59.1 dollars, p<0.001)., Conclusion: RIRS with CSEA can be completed with no anesthetic conversions and with the same efficacy and safety compared with GA. When considering economical aspects, CSEA appears to be a preferable alternative to GA for the patient whose general health status permits it.

Background and Purpose: Ureteroscopy (URS) is a common treatment for patients with stone disease. One of the disadvantages of this approach is the great capital expense associated with the purchase and repair of endoscopic equipment. In some cases, these costs can outpace revenues and lead to an unprofitable and unsustainable enterprise. We sought to characterize the profitability of our URS program when accounting for endoscope maintenance and repair costs., Materials and Methods: We identified all URS cases performed at a single hospital during fiscal year 2013 (FY2013). Charges, collection rates, and fixed and variable costs including annual equipment repair costs were obtained. The net margin and break-even point of URS were derived on a per-case basis., Results: For 190 cases performed in FY2013, total endoscope repair costs totaled $115,000, resulting in an average repair cost of $605 per case. The vast majority of cases (94.2%) were conducted in the outpatient setting, which generated a net margin of $659 per case, while inpatient cases yielded a net loss of $455. URS was ultimately associated with a net positive margin approaching $600 per case. On break-even analysis, URS remained profitable until repair costs reached $1200 per case., Conclusions: Based on these findings, an established URS program can sustain profitability even with large equipment repair costs. Nonetheless, our findings serve to emphasize the importance of controlling costs, particularly in the current setting of decreasing reimbursement. A multifaceted approach, based on improving endoscope durability and exploring digital and disposable platforms, will be critical in maintaining the sustainability of URS.

Background: The therapy of urinary stones in Germany is mostly a domain of hospitals even now. With the introduction of the German diagnosis-related groups (G-DRG) system in the years 2003/2004 an attempt was made to realize an ever-increasing fair representation and remuneration of treatment costs. Simultaneously, a declared target was to transfer all forms of treatment which did not necessitate hospital admission to the outpatient department., Results: Analysis of the D-DRG data on running invoicing from all German hospitals from 2004/2005 to 2012/2013 showed an increase in case numbers of around 12% with a parallel increase in the volume of revenues of around 37%. A special feature was a reduction in the proportion of extracorporeal shockwave therapy (ESWL) as inpatient treatment with a parallel increase in the proportion of ureteroscopic and percutaneous interventions.

Aim of the Study: To demonstrate how, in a center with a large number of patients, as our center is, it is possible to perform ureterolithotripsy using a limited set of instruments., Methods: We evaluated medical charts of our center related to semirigid ureteral ureteroscopy (URS) with ureterolithotripsy using Holmium laser performed from July 2004 to July 2011. Overall, 658 URS for ureteral stones were performed in 601 patients, of which 204 in proximal ureter (31%), 86 in the mid (13.06%) and 368 (57.76%) in the distal ureter. In 504 patients (76.5%) ureterohydronephrosis (Grade II-III) was observed. In 57 patients (8.6%), we performed a bilateral approach at the same time, but most patients had a solitary distal ureteral stone. 106 patients (16.1%) had more than one stone in their distal ureter and 96 (14.8%) had a proximal ureteral stone treated in the same surgery as well., Results: The overall stone-free rate for ureteral stones was 86.1% (567/658). Success rates for proximal, medial and distal ureteral stones were 68.13% (139/204 patients), 84.8% (73/86 patients) and 96.4% (355/368 patients), respectively. One hundred and twenty patients (18.3%) required additional surgical treatment for their stones beyond the initial URS, including a second URS in 97 patients (14.74%) and URS plus Retrograde Intra-Renal Surgery (RIRS) in 23 patients (3.54%). The overall stonefree rate after the second treatment was 99.3%. Intra-operative complications accounted for 5.92% and consisted of ureteral perforations in 16 pts (2.4%), erosions of urothelium leading to significant bleeding in 15 pts (2.27%), severe pain in 4 pts (0.6%), fever in 3 pts (0.45%) and one case of ureteral avulsion (0.15%)., Conclusions: This study demonstrates that the use of Holmium laser lithotripsy is a safe and effective means of treating ureteral stones regardless of sex, age, stone location, or stone size. The instrumentation we used was extremely limited, in order to reduce costs related to the procedure to an absolute minimum whilst maintaining the two quality indicators for the procedure, namely success rate and length of hospitalisation (86.1% and 34 hours).