» Articles » PMID: 34432135

Cost Analysis Between Mini-percutaneous Nephrolithotomy with and Without Vacuum-assisted Access Sheath

Abstract

Purpose: To perform a cost analysis between vacuum-assisted percutaneous nephrolithotomy (vmPCNL) and minimally invasive PCNL (MIP) and explore potential predictors of costs associated with the procedures.

Methods: We analyzed data from 225 patients who underwent vmPCNL or MIP at a single tertiary referral academic center between January 2016 and December 2020. We collected patients' demographics, peri-and postoperative data and detailed expense records. After propensity score matching, 108 (66.7%) vmPCNL and 54 (33.3%) MIP procedures were analyzed. Descriptive statistics assessed differences in clinical and operative parameters. Univariable and multivariable linear regression models tested the association between clinical variables and costs.

Results: Operative time (OT) was shorter for vmPCNL, and the use of additional instruments to complete litholapaxy was more frequent in MIP (all p ≤ 0.01). Length of stay (LOS) was longer for MIP patients (p = 0.03) and the stone-free (SF) rate was higher after vmPCNL (p = 0.04). The overall instrumentation cost was higher for vmPCNL (p < 0.001), but total procedural costs were equivalent (p = 0.9). However, the overall cost for the hospitalization was higher for MIP than vmPCNL (p = 0.01). Univariable linear regression revealed that patient's comorbidities, OT, any postoperative complication and LOS were associated with hospitalization costs (all p < 0.001). Multivariable linear regression analysis revealed that LOS and OT were associated with hospitalization costs (all p < 0.001), after accounting for vmPCNL procedure, patients' comorbidities, and complications.

Conclusion: vmPCNL may represent a valid option due to clinical and economic benefits. Shorter OT, the lower need for disposable equipment and the lower complication rate reduced procedural and hospitalization costs.

Citing Articles

Vacuum-assisted mini-percutaneous nephrolithotomy is associated with lower rates of infectious complications compared to vacuum-cleaner procedure in patients at high risk for infections: a single-center experience.

Marmiroli A, Nizzardo M, Zanetti S, Lucignani G, Turetti M, Silvani C World J Urol. 2024; 42(1):200.

PMID: 38536503 PMC: 10973077. DOI: 10.1007/s00345-024-04897-3.


Evaluation of ultrathin semirigid ureteroscopy in terms of efficiency and cost compared to flexible ureteroscopy in treating proximal ureteric stones: a prospective randomized multicenter study.

Gharib T, Abdel-Al I, Elatreisy A, Faisal M, Shalkamy O, El-Dakhakhny A World J Urol. 2023; 41(9):2527-2534.

PMID: 37477684 DOI: 10.1007/s00345-023-04507-8.


Validation of the Trifecta Scoring Metric in Vacuum-Assisted Mini-Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy: A Single-Center Experience.

Pozzi E, Malfatto M, Turetti M, Silvani C, Jannello L, Garbagnati S J Clin Med. 2022; 11(22).

PMID: 36431265 PMC: 9697932. DOI: 10.3390/jcm11226788.


Urologists are optimistic surgeons: prevalence and predictors of discordance between intraoperative stone-free rate and cross-sectional imaging evaluation after vacuum-assisted mini-percutaneous nephrolithotomy.

Jannello L, Turetti M, Silvani C, Galbiati G, Garbagnati S, Pozzi E World J Urol. 2022; 40(9):2331-2338.

PMID: 35831471 PMC: 9427905. DOI: 10.1007/s00345-022-04091-3.


The comprehensive complication index as a tool for reporting the burden of complications after mini-percutaneous nephrolithotomy: is it time to leave the Clavien-Dindo classification behind?.

Boeri L, Turetti M, Silvani C, Fulgheri I, Jannello L, Garbagnati S World J Urol. 2022; 40(7):1829-1837.

PMID: 35643945 PMC: 9236985. DOI: 10.1007/s00345-022-04045-9.


References
1.
Zeng G, Wan S, Zhao Z, Zhu J, Tuerxun A, Song C . Super-mini percutaneous nephrolithotomy (SMP): a new concept in technique and instrumentation. BJU Int. 2015; 117(4):655-61. DOI: 10.1111/bju.13242. View

2.
Tzelves L, Skolarikos A . Suction Use During Endourological Procedures. Curr Urol Rep. 2020; 21(11):46. DOI: 10.1007/s11934-020-00998-9. View

3.
Thapa B, Niranjan V . Mini PCNL Over Standard PCNL: What Makes it Better?. Surg J (N Y). 2020; 6(1):e19-e23. PMC: 7015816. DOI: 10.1055/s-0040-1701225. View

4.
DAgostino Jr R . Propensity score methods for bias reduction in the comparison of a treatment to a non-randomized control group. Stat Med. 1998; 17(19):2265-81. DOI: 10.1002/(sici)1097-0258(19981015)17:19<2265::aid-sim918>3.0.co;2-b. View

5.
Shah D, Patil A, Reddy N, Singh A, Ganpule A, Sabnis R . A clinical experience of thulium fibre laser in miniperc to dust with suction: a new horizon. World J Urol. 2020; 39(7):2727-2732. DOI: 10.1007/s00345-020-03458-8. View