Mostrar el registro sencillo del ítem
dc.contributor.author | Romeu, Gema | es_ES |
dc.contributor.author | Marzullo-Zucchet, Leopoldo José | es_ES |
dc.contributor.author | Diaz, Javier | es_ES |
dc.contributor.author | Budía, Alberto | es_ES |
dc.contributor.author | Villarroya, Sara | es_ES |
dc.contributor.author | Ordaz, Domingo de Guzmán | es_ES |
dc.contributor.author | Caballer, Vicent | es_ES |
dc.contributor.author | Vivas-Consuelo, David | es_ES |
dc.date.accessioned | 2022-11-07T16:34:28Z | |
dc.date.available | 2022-11-07T16:34:28Z | |
dc.date.issued | 2021-09 | es_ES |
dc.identifier.issn | 0724-4983 | es_ES |
dc.identifier.uri | http://hdl.handle.net/10251/189350 | |
dc.description.abstract | [EN] Purpose To analyze the efficiency and cost-utility profile of ureteroscopy versus shock wave lithotripsy for treatment of reno-ureteral stones smaller than 2 cm. Methods Patients treated for urinary stones smaller than 2 cm were included in this study (n = 750) and divided into two groups based on technique of treatment. To assess the cost-utility profile a sample of 48 patients (50% of each group) was evaluated. Quality of life survey (Euroqol 5QD-3L) before-after treatment was applied, Markov model was designed to calculate quality of life in each status of the patients (stone or stone-free with and without double-J stent) and to estimate the incremental cost-utility. Monte carlo simulation was conducted for a probabilistic sensitivity analysis. Chi-square was used for comparing qualitative variables and T student's for continuous variables. Results Shock wave lithotripsy group had 408 (54.4%) and ureteroscopy group had 342 (45.6%) patients. Of them, 56.3% were treated for renal stones and 43.7% for ureteral stones. Ureteroscopy produced slightly higher overall quality of patients' life, but produced a significant higher overall cost per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) than shock wave lithotripsy, exceeding the cost-utility threshold (20,000euro/QALY). Sensitivity analysis confirmed results in 93.65% of cases. Difference was maintained in subgroup analysis (ureteral vs renal stones). Conclusions Results suggest that in our clinical setting shock wave lithotripsy has better cost-utility profile than ureteroscopy for treatment of reno-ureteral stones less than 2 cm, but excluding waiting times, in ideal clinical setting, ureteroscopy would have better cost-utility profile than shock wave lithotripsy. | es_ES |
dc.language | Inglés | es_ES |
dc.publisher | Springer-Verlag | es_ES |
dc.relation.ispartof | World Journal of Urology | es_ES |
dc.rights | Reserva de todos los derechos | es_ES |
dc.subject | Lithotripsy | es_ES |
dc.subject | Quality-adjusted life years | es_ES |
dc.subject | Quality of life | es_ES |
dc.subject | Ureteroscopy | es_ES |
dc.subject | Urinary calculi | es_ES |
dc.title | Comparing extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy and ureteroscopy laser lithotripsy for treatment of urinary stones smaller than 2 cm: a cost-utility analysis in the Spanish clinical setting | es_ES |
dc.type | Artículo | es_ES |
dc.identifier.doi | 10.1007/s00345-021-03620-w | es_ES |
dc.rights.accessRights | Abierto | es_ES |
dc.description.bibliographicCitation | Romeu, G.; Marzullo-Zucchet, LJ.; Diaz, J.; Budía, A.; Villarroya, S.; Ordaz, DDG.; Caballer, V.... (2021). Comparing extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy and ureteroscopy laser lithotripsy for treatment of urinary stones smaller than 2 cm: a cost-utility analysis in the Spanish clinical setting. World Journal of Urology. 39(9):3593-3598. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-021-03620-w | es_ES |
dc.description.accrualMethod | S | es_ES |
dc.relation.publisherversion | https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-021-03620-w | es_ES |
dc.description.upvformatpinicio | 3593 | es_ES |
dc.description.upvformatpfin | 3598 | es_ES |
dc.type.version | info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion | es_ES |
dc.description.volume | 39 | es_ES |
dc.description.issue | 9 | es_ES |
dc.identifier.pmid | 33616709 | es_ES |
dc.relation.pasarela | S\444503 | es_ES |
dc.description.references | Sorokin I, Mamoulakis C, Miyazawa K, Rodgers A, Talati J, Lotan Y (2017) Epidemiology of stone disease across the world. World J Urol 35:1301–1320. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-017-2008-6 | es_ES |
dc.description.references | Sánchez-Martín FM, Millán Rodríguez F, Esquena Fernández S, Segarra Tomás J, Rousaud Barón F, Martínez-Rodríguez R et al (2007) Incidence and prevalence of published studies about urolithiasis in Spain. A review. Actas Urol Esp 31:511–520 | es_ES |
dc.description.references | Arrabal-Martín M, Fernández-Rodríguez A, Arrabal-Polo MA, Ruíz-García MJ, Zuluaga-Gómez A (2006) Study of the physical–chemical factors in patients with renal lithiasis. Arch Esp Urol 59:583–594 | es_ES |
dc.description.references | Assimos D, Krambeck A, Miller NL, Monga M, Murad MH, Nelson CP, et al (2016) Surgical managment of stones: American Urological Association/Endourological Society guideline 2016. https://www.auanet.org/guidelines/kidney-stones-surgical-management-guideline | es_ES |
dc.description.references | Türk C, Skolarikos A, Neisius A, Petřík A, Seitz C, Thomas K. European Association of Urology Guidelines on urolithiasis 2018. https://uroweb.org/guideline/urolithiasis/. Accessed 7 Jun 2019 | es_ES |
dc.description.references | Izamin I, Aniza I, Rizal AM, Aljunid SM (2009) Comparing extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy and ureteroscopy for treatment of proximal ureteric calculi: a cost-effectiveness study. Med J Malays 64:12–21 | es_ES |
dc.description.references | Matlaga BR, Jansen JP, Meckley LM, Byrne TW, Lingeman JE (2012) Economic outcomes of treatment for ureteral and renal stones: a systematic literature review. J Urol 188:449–454. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2012.04.008 | es_ES |
dc.description.references | Cone EB, Pareek G, Ursiny M, Eisner B (2016) Cost-effectiveness comparison of ureteral calculi treated with ureteroscopic laser lithotripsy versus shockwave lithotripsy. World J Urol 35:1–6. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-016-1842-2 | es_ES |
dc.description.references | Budia A, Caballer V, Vivas D, López-Acon D, Angeles M, Díez JA et al (2016) Comparison of extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy versus ureteroscopy holmium laser lithotripsy in the management of ureteral stones: a cost-effectiveness analysis. Med Surg Urol 5:1–8. https://doi.org/10.4172/2168-9857.1000168 | es_ES |
dc.description.references | Perez Ardavin J, Lorenzo L, Caballer Tarazona V, Budia A, Bahilo P, López-Acón JD et al (2018) Comparative analysis of lost productivity and costs, between extracorporeal lithotripsy treatment and endoscopic treatment for reno-ureteral lithiasis less than 2 cm. Eur Urol Suppl 17:e1126. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1569-9056(18)31618-X | es_ES |
dc.description.references | Arafa MA, Rabah DM (2010) Study of quality of life and its determinants in patients after urinary stone fragmentation. Health Qual Life Outcomes 8:119. https://doi.org/10.1186/1477-7525-8-119 | es_ES |
dc.description.references | Raja A, Hekmati Z, Joshi HB (2016) How do urinary calculi influence health-related quality of life and patient treatment preference: a systematic review. J Endourol 30:727–743. https://doi.org/10.1089/end.2016.0110 | es_ES |
dc.description.references | Sahin C, Kafkasli A, Cetinel CA, Narter F, Saglam E, Sarica K (2015) How do the residual fragments after SWL affect the health-related quality of life? A critical analysis in a size-based manner. Urolithiasis 43:163–170. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00240-014-0727-3 | es_ES |
dc.description.references | Boronat F, Barrachina I, Budia A, Vivas Consuelo D, Criado MC (2017) Costes y procesos hospitalarios en un servicio de urología de un hospital terciario. Análisis de los grupos relacionados por el diagnóstico. Actas Urol Esp 41:400–408. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acuro.2016.10.003 | es_ES |
dc.description.references | Streem SB, Yost A, Mascha E (1996) Clinical implications of clinically insignificant stone fragments after extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy. J Urol 155:1186–1190. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-5347(01)66208-6 | es_ES |
dc.description.references | Robinson R (1993) Economic evaluation and health care. What does it mean? BMJ 307:670–673. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.307.6905.670 | es_ES |
dc.description.references | Brooks R, De Charro F (1996) EuroQol: the current state of play. Health Policy (New York) 37:53–72. https://doi.org/10.1016/0168-8510(96)00822-6 | es_ES |
dc.description.references | EuroQol Group (1990) EuroQol—a new facility for the measurement of health-related quality of life. Health Policy (Amsterdam, Netherlands) 16(3):199–208. https://doi.org/10.1016/0168-8510(90)90421-9 | es_ES |
dc.description.references | Rubio-Terrés C, Cobo E, Antonio Sacristán J, Prieto L, del Llano J, Badia X (2004) Análisis de la incertidumbre en las evaluaciones económicas de intervenciones sanitarias. Med Clin (Barc) 122:668–674. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0025-7753(04)74346-8 | es_ES |
dc.description.references | Alonso J, Ferrer M, Gandek B, Ware JE, Aaronson NK, Mosconi P et al (2004) Health-related quality of life associated with chronic conditions in eight countries: results from the International Quality of Life Assessment (IQOLA) Project. Qual Life Res 13:283–298. https://doi.org/10.1023/b:qure.0000018472.46236.05 | es_ES |
dc.description.references | McCabe C, Claxton K, Culyer AJ (2008) The NICE cost-effectiveness threshold: what it is and what that means. Pharmacoeconomics 26:733–744. https://doi.org/10.2165/00019053-200826090-00004 | es_ES |
dc.description.references | Vallejo-Torres L, García-Lorenzo B, Castilla I, Valcárcel-Nazco C, García-Pérez L, Linertová R et al (2016) On the estimation of the cost-effectiveness threshold: why, what, how? Value Heal 19:558–566. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jval.2016.02.020 | es_ES |
dc.description.references | Bensalah K, Tuncel A, Gupta A, Raman JD, Pearle MS, Lotan Y (2008) Determinants of quality of life for patients with kidney stones. J Urol 179:2238–2243. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2008.01.116 | es_ES |
dc.description.references | Kurahashi T, Miyake H, Shinozaki M, Oka N, Takenaka A, Hara I et al (2008) Health-related quality of life in patients undergoing lithotripsy for urinary stones. Int Urol Nephrol 40:39–43. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11255-007-9231-9 | es_ES |