Skip to main content Skip to main navigation menu Skip to site footer

Comparison of efficacy, safety, and cost between ultrasonography and fluoroscopy-ultrasonography as a target device in extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy in kidney stones less than 1.5 centimeters

Abstract

Background: Kidney stones are the most common case in the field of urology, particularly in Indonesia. Extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL) is one of the therapeutic modalities with the aid of fluoroscopy and/or ultrasonography to visualize the location of the stone. To date, there is no research in Indonesia on the efficacy, safety and cost compatibility between ESWL and their implementation in various hospitals. This study aimed to compare the efficacy, safety and cost of fluoroscopy-ultrasonography-guided ESWL (FU-ESWL) and ultrasonography-guided ESWL (U-ESWL) as target devices in type-C hospitals in Denpasar.

Methods: This research is a quantitative study with a prospective cohort approach that involved two group pre-post-test designs. The intervention was performed using the target device of FU-ESWL at Surya Husadha Hospital and U-ESWL at Balimed Hospital. The population of this study was patients with kidney stones less than 1.5 cm who underwent ESWL. The post-treatment assessment was the efficacy (stone size, stone-free rate (SFR), frequency, re-treatment, auxiliary procedure), safety (complication) and cost (unit cost, perceived cost, actual cost, Average Cost Effectiveness Ratio (ACER), Efficiency Quotient (EQ)).

Results: After treatment, the FU-ESWL group showed a smaller remaining stone size than the U-ESWL group. The ESWL frequency and re-treatment in FU-ESWL showed significantly better results than in U-ESWL. No significant differences in complication and SFR between the two groups. The unit cost of FU-ESWL was significantly higher than U-ESWL. However, the perceived cost and actual cost were not significantly different between the two groups. Moreover, the cost aspect of the average cost-effectiveness ratio (ACER) and efficiency Quotient (EQ) of FU-ESWL is better than U-ESWL.

Conclusion: The combination targeting of FU-ESWL has better efficacy, ACER and EQ than U-ESWL.  However, no significant differences were found in complication and SFR between the two groups. Important findings in this research are expected to contribute to monitoring and evaluating the national health insurance implementation in the field of Urology.

References

  1. Sorokin I, Mamoulakis C, Miyazawa K, Rodgers A, Talati J, Lotan Y. Epidemiology of stone disease across the world. World J Urol. 2017;35(9):1301-1320. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-017-2008-6.
  2. Rasyid N, Atmoko W, and Duarsa GWK. Guidelines for the Clinical Management of Urinary Tract Stones. IAUI. 2018. p1-58.
  3. Ouzaid I, Al-qahtani S, Dominique S, et al. A 970 Hounsfield units (HU) threshold of kidney stone density on non-contrast computed tomography (NCCT) improves patients' selection for extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy (ESWL): evidence from a prospective study. BJU Int. 2012;110(11 Pt B):E438-E442. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1464-410X.2012.10964.x.
  4. Goren MR, Goren V, Ozer C. Ultrasound-Guided Shockwave Lithotripsy Reduces Radiation Exposure and Has Better Outcomes for Pediatric Cystine Stones. Urol Int. 2017;98(4):429-435. https://doi.org/10.1159/000446220.
  5. Türk H, Yoldaş M, Süelözgen T, et al. Effects of previous unsuccessful extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy treatment on the performance and outcome of percutaneous nephrolithotomy. Arab J Urol. 2017;15(2):94-99. Published 2017 Apr 7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aju.2017.01.009.
  6. Arunagiri A. Comparative Study of Efficacy of Localization and Fragmentation of Renal Stone by USG And Fluoroscopy Guided ESWL. Kilpauk Medical College. 2010. p1-77.
  7. Ozkaya F. Comparison of the results of shock wave lithotripsy with ultrasonic and fluoroscopic focus in pediatric age group; Fluoroscopic focusing how much is needed? Annals of Medical Research. 2019;26(11). p2502-2506. https://doi.org/10.5455/annalsmedres.2019.10.600.
  8. Reynolds LF, Kroczak T, Pace KT. Indications and contraindications for shock wave lithotripsy and how to improve outcomes. Asian J Urol. 2018;5(4):256-263. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajur.2018.08.006.
  9. Van Besien J, Uvin P, Hermie I, Tailly T, Merckx L. Ultrasonography Is Not Inferior to Fluoroscopy to Guide Extracorporeal Shock Waves during Treatment of Renal and Upper Ureteric Calculi: A Randomized Prospective Study. Biomed Res Int. 2017;2017:7802672. https://doi.org/10.1155/2017/7802672
  10. Chang TH, Lin WR, Tsai WK, et al. Comparison of ultrasound-assisted and pure fluoroscopy-guided extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy for renal stones. BMC Urol. 2020;20(1):183. Published 2020 Nov 10. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12894-020-00756-6.
  11. McClain PD, Lange JN, Assimos DG. Optimizing shock wave lithotripsy: a comprehensive review. Rev Urol. 2013;15(2):49-60.
  12. Geraghty RM, Jones P, Herrmann TRW, Aboumarzouk O, Somani BK. Ureteroscopy is more cost effective than shock wave lithotripsy for stone treatment: systematic review and meta-analysis. World J Urol. 2018;36(11):1783-1793. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-018-2320-9.
  13. Large T, Krambeck AE. Emerging Technologies in Lithotripsy. Urol Clin North Am. 2019;46(2):215-223. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ucl.2018.12.012.
  14. Duarsa GWK, Duarsa GWDP, and Tirtayasa PMW. The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on Extracorporeal Shock Wave Lithotripsy (ESWL) services at Surya Husadha Hospital Denpasar. E-Jurnal Medika Udayana. 2021;10(9). p12-15. https://doi.org/10.24843/MU.2021.V10.i9.P03.
  15. Eze KC, Irekpita E, Salami TA. Cost-effectiveness of extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy in a poor resource setting: The Okada, Nigeria experience. Niger Med J. 2016;57(1):44-48. https://doi.org/10.4103/0300-1652.180568.
  16. Koo V, Beattie I, Young M. Improved cost-effectiveness and efficiency with a slower shockwave delivery rate. BJU Int. 2010;105(5):692-696. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1464-410X.2009.08919.x.
  17. Duarsa GWK, Putra CN, Ivandi K, Wiryadana KA, Tirtayasa PMW, and Pribadi F. Comparison of ultrasonography and fluoroscopy as guides for extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy in nephrolithiasis patients: a systematic review. MJI. 2022;31(3). p160-169. https://doi.org/10.13181/mji.oa.226140.
  18. Arenas-Guzman R, Tosti A, Hay R, Haneke E; National Institue for Clinical Excellence. Pharmacoeconomics--an aid to better decision-making. J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol. 2005;19 Suppl 1:34-39. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-3083.2005.01285.x.
  19. Surji K. Understanding leadership and factors that Influence Leaders effectiveness. European Journal of Business and Management. 2015;7(33). p154-167. https://doi.org/10.7176/EJBM/7-33-2015-03.
  20. Powar PV, Nagare A, Ambikar RB, Sharma PH, and Vyawahare NS. Pharmacoeconomics—Costs of drug therapy to healthcare systems. Journal Of Modern Drug Discovery and Drug Delivery Research. 2014;1(2). p1-6.
  21. Rajaian S, Kumar S, Gopalakrishnan G, Chacko NK, Devasia A, Kekre NS. Outcome of shock wave lithotripsy as monotherapy for large solitary renal stones (>2 cm in size) without stenting. Indian J Urol. 2010;26(3):359-363. https://doi.org/10.4103/0970-1591.70568.

How to Cite

Duarsa, G. W. K., & Firman Pribadi. (2023). Comparison of efficacy, safety, and cost between ultrasonography and fluoroscopy-ultrasonography as a target device in extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy in kidney stones less than 1.5 centimeters. Bali Medical Journal, 12(2), 1745–1755. https://doi.org/10.15562/bmj.v12i2.4133

HTML
29

Total
13

Share

Search Panel

Gede Wirya Kusuma Duarsa
Google Scholar
Pubmed
BMJ Journal


Firman Pribadi
Google Scholar
Pubmed
BMJ Journal