Kapoor D A, Leech J E, Yap W T, Rose J F, Kabler R, Mowad J J
Department of Urology, Geisinger Medical Center, Danville, Pennsylvania.
J Urol. 1992 Sep;148(3 Pt 2):1095-6. doi: 10.1016/s0022-5347(17)36829-5.
We retrospectively reviewed the extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL) and ureteroscopy experience relative to cost and efficacy of a group of practitioners skilled in the use of both procedures for the treatment of lower ureteral stones. Although the initial success rate was higher with ureteroscopy, no significant difference could be found in final success or complication rates. The cost of ESWL was approximately 60% higher than that for ureteroscopy (mean $7,320.26 versus $4,568.47, p less than 0.005). Given the current restraints on resources, and the equal efficacy and morbidity of both procedures, ureteroscopy must be considered the procedure of choice in the management of lower ureteral stones.
我们回顾性分析了一组熟练掌握体外冲击波碎石术(ESWL)和输尿管镜检查术的从业者治疗输尿管下段结石时的成本效益。虽然输尿管镜检查术的初始成功率较高,但最终成功率和并发症发生率并无显著差异。ESWL的成本比输尿管镜检查术高出约60%(平均7320.26美元对4568.47美元,p<0.005)。鉴于当前资源限制以及两种手术疗效和发病率相当,输尿管镜检查术应被视为治疗输尿管下段结石的首选方法。