Comparing extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy and ureteroscopy for treatment of proximal ureteric calculi: A cost-effectiveness study

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

10 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Extracorporeal Shockwave lithotripsy (ESWL) and ureteroscopy (URS) are two main methods of treating proximal ureteric stones. Success rates and cost-effectiveness of the two methods were compared. A total of 67 patients who underwent treatment between January 2007 and July 2007 at a state general hospital were included in the study. The success rate for ESWL group was 81.8% and for URS group was 84.6%. ESWL technique produced a significant higher overall cost per patient than URS (RM930.02 versus RM621.95 respectively). There was no significant difference in quality of patient's life. Cost-effectiveness ratio was lower for URS. The analysis suggested that URS was more cost-effective than ESWL.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)12-21
Number of pages10
JournalMedical Journal of Malaysia
Volume64
Issue number1
Publication statusPublished - Mar 2009

Fingerprint

Ureteroscopy
Lithotripsy
Calculi
Cost-Benefit Analysis
Therapeutics
Costs and Cost Analysis
State Hospitals
General Hospitals
Quality of Life

Keywords

  • Cost-effectiveness analysis
  • Shock wave lithotripsy
  • Ureteroscopy, ureteric calculi

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Medicine(all)

Cite this

@article{967b951e073b4816a8ff77df1e2ec990,
title = "Comparing extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy and ureteroscopy for treatment of proximal ureteric calculi: A cost-effectiveness study",
abstract = "Extracorporeal Shockwave lithotripsy (ESWL) and ureteroscopy (URS) are two main methods of treating proximal ureteric stones. Success rates and cost-effectiveness of the two methods were compared. A total of 67 patients who underwent treatment between January 2007 and July 2007 at a state general hospital were included in the study. The success rate for ESWL group was 81.8{\%} and for URS group was 84.6{\%}. ESWL technique produced a significant higher overall cost per patient than URS (RM930.02 versus RM621.95 respectively). There was no significant difference in quality of patient's life. Cost-effectiveness ratio was lower for URS. The analysis suggested that URS was more cost-effective than ESWL.",
keywords = "Cost-effectiveness analysis, Shock wave lithotripsy, Ureteroscopy, ureteric calculi",
author = "I. Izamin and Aniza Ismail and {Abdul Manaf}, {Mohd Rizal} and {Syed Junid}, {Syed Mohamed Al-Junid}",
year = "2009",
month = "3",
language = "English",
volume = "64",
pages = "12--21",
journal = "Medical Journal of Malaysia",
issn = "0300-5283",
publisher = "Malaysian Medical Association",
number = "1",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Comparing extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy and ureteroscopy for treatment of proximal ureteric calculi

T2 - A cost-effectiveness study

AU - Izamin, I.

AU - Ismail, Aniza

AU - Abdul Manaf, Mohd Rizal

AU - Syed Junid, Syed Mohamed Al-Junid

PY - 2009/3

Y1 - 2009/3

N2 - Extracorporeal Shockwave lithotripsy (ESWL) and ureteroscopy (URS) are two main methods of treating proximal ureteric stones. Success rates and cost-effectiveness of the two methods were compared. A total of 67 patients who underwent treatment between January 2007 and July 2007 at a state general hospital were included in the study. The success rate for ESWL group was 81.8% and for URS group was 84.6%. ESWL technique produced a significant higher overall cost per patient than URS (RM930.02 versus RM621.95 respectively). There was no significant difference in quality of patient's life. Cost-effectiveness ratio was lower for URS. The analysis suggested that URS was more cost-effective than ESWL.

AB - Extracorporeal Shockwave lithotripsy (ESWL) and ureteroscopy (URS) are two main methods of treating proximal ureteric stones. Success rates and cost-effectiveness of the two methods were compared. A total of 67 patients who underwent treatment between January 2007 and July 2007 at a state general hospital were included in the study. The success rate for ESWL group was 81.8% and for URS group was 84.6%. ESWL technique produced a significant higher overall cost per patient than URS (RM930.02 versus RM621.95 respectively). There was no significant difference in quality of patient's life. Cost-effectiveness ratio was lower for URS. The analysis suggested that URS was more cost-effective than ESWL.

KW - Cost-effectiveness analysis

KW - Shock wave lithotripsy

KW - Ureteroscopy, ureteric calculi

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=70449701979&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=70449701979&partnerID=8YFLogxK

M3 - Article

C2 - 19852314

AN - SCOPUS:70449701979

VL - 64

SP - 12

EP - 21

JO - Medical Journal of Malaysia

JF - Medical Journal of Malaysia

SN - 0300-5283

IS - 1

ER -