Skip to main content

ETHNOS_APP

Home • Search • Journals • List 0

Cost Analysis of Extracorporeal Shock Wave Lithotripsy Relative to Other Surgical and Nonsurgical Treatment Alternatives for Urolithiasis

Bibliographic Data

ID9103091
AuthorsJames E Lingeman (Indiana University – Purdue University Indianapolis, corresponding author), Robert M Saywell (Indiana University – Purdue University Indianapolis), JOHN R WOODS (Houston Methodist), Daniel M Newman (Houston Methodist, corresponding author)
Year1986
Volume24
Issue12
Pages1151-1160
Publication date1986-12-01
Peer ReviewedYes
Open AccessNo
TypeARTICLE
VenueMedical Care (JOURNAL)
Journal identifiersISSN: 0025-7079 • E-ISSN: 1537-1948
PublisherOvid Technologies (Wolters Kluwer Health) (PUBLISHER)
DOI10.1097/00005650-198612000-00007
PMID3796081
OpenAlexW1980290895
LanguageEN
References cited4

The impact and associated costs of new urolithiasis treatment methods, including extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL), were examined in a series of 1781 patients treated between March 1, 1983, and February 28, 1985. An accounting cost methodology was used to derive estimates of direct and indirect hospital costs, as distinct from charges billed to the patient. The average hospital cost per case for ESWL was lower by 27% and significantly different (P less than 0.05) than the average cost for surgically treated patients. The difference in cost between ESWL and percutaneous lithotripsy was not statistically significant. The invasiveness of the treatments studied was directly related to length of hospital stay and cost. Projecting our findings to the entire urolithiasis population of the United States, we estimate that the usage of ESWL, if applied only to patients who would otherwise receive surgery, could result in an annual hospital cost savings of $124,436,520. We conclude that although the institutional cost of acquiring ESWL is high, its application results in a significant cost savings for patients previously requiring surgery, it is no more expensive than percutaneous stone removal, and it has the advantage of being less invasive than any other treatment method. The potential national savings in health care costs may not be realized if the indications for this less invasive technology are defined more broadly than are those for open surgical procedures, as seems likely, and unless limits are placed on the number of lithotripters made available nationally. Indications for ESWL need to be clearly defined based on careful studies of risks, potential benefits, and costs

Cost analysis · Extracorporeal · Extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy · Health care · Intensive care medicine · Lithotripsy · Percutaneous · Population · Abdominal Surgery and Complications · Emergency Medicine · Gallbladder and Bile Duct Disorders · Kidney Stones and Urolithiasis Treatments · Medicine · Surgery

  • The Adoption and Diffusion of CT and MRI in the United States

    Alan L Hillman, J Sanford Schwartz•Medical Care•1985

  • Comparative Costs Versus Symptomatic and Employment Benefits of Medical and Surgical Treatment of Stable Angina Pectoris

    David Hemenway, Herbert Sherman et al.•Medical Care•1985

  • Costs and Outcomes of Medical Intensive Care

    Mark R Chassin•Medical Care•1982

  • Evaluating Inpatient Costs

    Mohan L Garg, Daniel Z Louis et al.•Medical Care•1978

Citation velocityhistorical
Highly citedNo

Tools

Open DOISci-Hub
Ethnos_APP • Open Source Project • MIT License • Frontend v2.0.0 • Privacy and Cookies • API Documentation: api.ethnos.app/docs • API Source Code: GitHub • DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.17049435 • Frontend Source Code: GitHub • DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.17050053 • cruz.rio.br • Expectantes Misericordiae