Publication:
Laparoscopic ureterolithotomy; an equally effective and a sensible alternative to flexible ureterorenoscopy in the management of large ureteral stones in terms of effectivity and cost

dc.contributor.authorGÜNSEREN, KADİR ÖMÜR
dc.contributor.authorDEMİR, Aslan
dc.contributor.authorÇİÇEK, MEHMET ÇAĞATAY
dc.contributor.authorYAVAŞCAOĞLU, İSMET
dc.contributor.authorKILIÇARSLAN, HAKAN
dc.contributor.institutionauthorDEMİR, ASLAN
dc.date.accessioned2021-07-20T20:59:12Z
dc.date.available2021-07-20T20:59:12Z
dc.date.issued2021-07-01T00:00:00Z
dc.description.abstractObjectives: We aimed to understand whether laparoscopic ureterolithotomy (LU) is a good alternative to flexible ureterorenoscopic lithotripsy (FURS) by comparing these techniques concerning cost-effectiveness. Methods: We analysed 79 patients with upper ureteral stones larger than 1.5 cm underwent FURS or LU concerning cost-effectiveness analysis. The data including age, body mass index (BMI), stone size, operation time, hospitalisation time, complications and stone-free rates of 15th day and 3rd months. We audited the costs of FURS and LU and compared them concerning cost-effectiveness. Results: There was not any statistically significant difference between the two groups with regard to age, BMI, stone size, stone-free rates at the 3rd month, and complication rates, (p>0.05). The operation times were statistically lower in the FURS than in the LU (61.5±24.3 min and 140.9±49.1 min, respectively, p<0.05). The stone-free rate at the 15th day was lower in the FURS group than in the LU group (31 (81.6%) and 41 (100%), respectively, p<0.05) (Table I). However, this statistical difference disappears at 3 months (p>0.05). The mean costs of FURS and LU were $194.2±12.4 and $179.2±58.5, respectively (p<0.001). Conclusion: FURS is equally effective to LU in terms of stone-free rates. The cost of FURS is higher statistically than LU. FURS is shown as the first choice for the upper ureteral stones larger than 10 mm in size, if the laparoscopic experience is in high-level situations in that clinic, LU may be a suitable alternative to FURS, especially for challenging cases.
dc.identifier.pubmed34219062
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12645/29078
dc.identifier.wosWOS:000670853900008
dc.subjectCost-effectiveness
dc.subjectCoste-efectividad
dc.subjectFlexible ureterorenoscopy
dc.subjectLithotripsy
dc.subjectLitotripsia
dc.subjectUreterolitotomia laparoscópica
dc.subjectUreterorenoscopia flexible
dc.titleLaparoscopic ureterolithotomy; an equally effective and a sensible alternative to flexible ureterorenoscopy in the management of large ureteral stones in terms of effectivity and cost
dc.typeArticle
dspace.entity.typePublication
local.avesis.idaf897410-fe84-4e39-89a2-2385a919baf0
local.publication.isinternational1
relation.isAuthorOfPublicationf270c4b8-2798-42bf-ac4c-e0b550980389
relation.isAuthorOfPublication.latestForDiscoveryf270c4b8-2798-42bf-ac4c-e0b550980389
Files
Original bundle
Now showing 1 - 1 of 1
Loading...
Thumbnail Image
Name:
Laparoscopic ureterolithotomy; an equally effective and a sensible alternative to flexible ureterorenoscopy in the management of large ureteral stones in terms of effectivity and cost.pdf
Size:
150.15 KB
Format:
Adobe Portable Document Format
Description: