» Articles » PMID: 16456694

Is Prevention of Stone Recurrence Financially Worthwhile?

Overview
Journal Urol Res
Specialty Urology
Date 2006 Feb 4
PMID 16456694
Citations 13
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

This review shows that the cost of relying solely on minimally-invasive urological procedures for removing stones when patients return with recurrent stones is considerable and is significantly greater that that incurred by screening already proven recurrent stone-formers to identify the risk factors that are causing their stones and then instituting prophylactic measures to prevent stone recurrence. In the UK, at 1998 prices (when the original survey was carried out) for every stone episode prevented, there is a potential saving of almost 2,000 pound to the local Health Authority concerned. In spite of this, many Health Authorities have taken the liberty to discontinue comprehensive stone screening within the past 20 years under the mistaken supposition that minimally-invasive techniques for removing stones have "solved the stone problem". At UCLH in London where such a comprehensive scheme has been in place for the past 8 years, savings of up to 250,000 pound per year can be made by identifying the particular lifestyle as well as the epidemiological, metabolic and nutritional risk factors involved in a given patient and then instituting appropriate measures to prevent further stones.

Citing Articles

The impact of urolithiasis on urology services in a high-prevalence region: A multicenter study.

Kamal W, Alghamdi M, Azhar R, Bugis A, Abuzenada M, Alharthi M Asian J Urol. 2025; 12(1):59-65.

PMID: 39990065 PMC: 11840314. DOI: 10.1016/j.ajur.2024.04.001.


Patient compliance to dietary recommendations: tips and tricks to improve compliance rates.

Karagoz M, Sarica K World J Urol. 2023; 41(5):1261-1268.

PMID: 36786816 DOI: 10.1007/s00345-023-04318-x.


Urine and stone analysis for the investigation of the renal stone former: a consensus conference.

Williams Jr J, Gambaro G, Rodgers A, Asplin J, Bonny O, Costa-Bauza A Urolithiasis. 2020; 49(1):1-16.

PMID: 33048172 PMC: 7867533. DOI: 10.1007/s00240-020-01217-3.


Changes in urinary risk profile after short-term low sodium and low calcium diet in recurrent Swiss kidney stone formers.

Seeger H, Kaelin A, Ferraro P, Weber D, Jaeger P, Ambuehl P BMC Nephrol. 2017; 18(1):349.

PMID: 29202723 PMC: 5715611. DOI: 10.1186/s12882-017-0755-7.


How can and should we optimize extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy?.

Chaussy C, Tiselius H Urolithiasis. 2017; 46(1):3-17.

PMID: 29177561 PMC: 5773650. DOI: 10.1007/s00240-017-1020-z.


References
1.
Pearle M, Calhoun E, Curhan G . Urologic diseases in America project: urolithiasis. J Urol. 2005; 173(3):848-57. DOI: 10.1097/01.ju.0000152082.14384.d7. View

2.
Strohmaier W . [Socioeconomic aspects of urinary calculi and metaphylaxis of urinary calculi]. Urologe A. 2000; 39(2):166-70. DOI: 10.1007/s001200050026. View

3.
Fine J, Pak C, Preminger G . Effect of medical management and residual fragments on recurrent stone formation following shock wave lithotripsy. J Urol. 1995; 153(1):27-32; discussion 32-3. DOI: 10.1097/00005392-199501000-00010. View

4.
Norman R, Bath S, Robertson W, Peacock M . When should patients with symptomatic urinary stone disease be evaluated metabolically?. J Urol. 1984; 132(6):1137-9. DOI: 10.1016/s0022-5347(17)50064-6. View

5.
Parks J, Coe F . The financial effects of kidney stone prevention. Kidney Int. 1996; 50(5):1706-12. DOI: 10.1038/ki.1996.489. View