Laparoscopic ureterolithotomy; an equally effective and a sensible alternative to flexible ureterorenoscopy in the management of large ureteral stones in terms of effectivity and cost

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: We aimed to understand whether laparoscopic ureterolithotomy (LU) is a good alternative to flexible ureterorenoscopic lithotripsy (FURS) by comparing these techniques concerning cost-effectiveness.METHODS: We analysed 79 patients with upper ureteral stones larger than 1.5 cm underwent FURS or LU concerning cost-effectiveness analysis. The data including age, body mass index (BMI), stone size, operation time, hospitalisation time, complications and stone-free rates of 15th day and 3rd months. We audited the costs of FURS and LU and compared them concerning cost-effectiveness.RESULTS: There was not any statistically significant difference between the two groups with regard to age, BMI, stone size, stone-free rates at the 3rd month, and complication rates, (p>0.05).The operation times were statistically lower in the FURS than in the LU (61.5 +/- 24.3 min and 140.9 +/- 49.1 min, respectively, p<0.05). The stone-free rate at the 15th day was lower in the FURS group than in the LU group (31 (81.6%) and 41 (100%), respectively, p<0.05) (Table I).However, this statistical difference disappears at 3 months (p>0.05). The mean costs of FURS and LU were $194.2 +/- 12.4 and $179.2 +/- 58.5, respectively (p<0.001).CONCLUSION: FURS is equally effective to LU in terms of stone-free rates. The cost of FURS is higher statistically than LU. FURS is shown as the first choice for the upper ureteral stones larger than 10 mm in size, if the laparoscopic experience is in high-level situations in that clinic, LU may be a suitable alternative to FURS, especially for challenging cases.