SWL is More Cost-Effective than Ureteroscopy and Holmium:YAG Laser Lithotripsy for Ureteric Stones: A Comparative Analysis for a Tertiary Referral Centre

Abstract

Background: To identify the most cost-effective treatment for ureteric stones ≤15 mm in our department, by using an economic model to compare the total cost of shockwave lithotripsy (SWL) versus ureteroscopy with Holmium:YAG laser lithotripsy (URSL). Patients and methods: Data for patients treated with the same lithotriptor were retrospectively analyzed. The financial department provided data about the cost of procedures. This model accepted a 100% stone-free rate for URSL in outpatients, and a 50% rate of insertion of a ureteric stent. The cost for each procedure to render a patient stone-free was estimated by the following equations: costSWL = cost(initial SWL session) + [cost(SWL session) × retreatment rate] + [cost(URSL) × SWL failure rate] + [cost(stent insertion and removal) × rate] + [cost(KUB film) × 4] costURSL = cost(URSL) + [cost(stent removal) × 50%] + [cost(KUB film) × 2] Results: Records of 228 patients with previously untreated solitary radiopaque ureteric stones ≤15 mm were reviewed. The total cost for SWL (cSWL) was £1491/patient, while the total cost for URSL (cURSL) was £2195/patient. The difference was highest in the upper ureter (over £1000), and lowest in the distal part (URSL about 40% more expensive). For lower ureteric stones >10 mm, SWL was over £500 more expensive than URSL. Conclusion: Using data from the department to calculate cost-effectiveness for ureteric stones ≤15 mm a difference in favour of SWL versus URSL was found. Uniform guidelines incorporating cost are impossible considering differences between countries; each centre should probably assess their data individually.