Micro cost-effectiveness analysis of standard vs. mini percutaneous nephrolithotomy
A single Canadian institution’s experience
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.5489/cuaj.8679Keywords:
mPCNL, sPCNL, Percutaneous nephrolithotomy, Cost-effectivenessAbstract
Introduction: Mini-percutaneous nephrolithotomy (mPCNL) has been described as an alternative to standard nephrolithotomy (sPCNL) for select stones. Studies suggest that mPCNL has comparable stone-free rates, with potential for decreased complications and shorter hospital stay. Costs associated with both procedures present a challenge to Canadian institutions due to capital acquisitions of equipment and ongoing disposables. The objective of this study was to compare the cost-effectiveness of both procedures at our institution.
Methods: A decision-tree analytic model was developed to compare costs and outcomes of both procedures. Primary outcomes included assessment of total capital, operative, and hospitalization costs. Cost and outcome of peri- and postoperative parameters were obtained using a retrospective analysis of 20 mPCNL and 84 sPCNL procedures on 1–2.5 cm stones between January 2020 and June 2022, and supplemented with internal hospital expenditure records and literature outcome data. Descriptive statistics and regression models were performed.
Results: The estimated total cost-per-patient was $7427.05 and $5036.29 for sPCNL and mPCNL, respectively, resulting in cost-savings of $2390.76 in favor of mPCNL with a comparable stone-free rate. The savings were due to lower costs associated with complications and hospital stay. mPCNL had higher capital costs ($95 116.00) compared to sPCNL ($78 517.00), but per-procedure operative costs were lower for mPCNL ($2504.48) compared to sPCNL ($3335.72). Cost-per-case regression of total costs intersected at 5.51 cases when accounting for operative and hospitalization costs, and at 20 cases when only considering operative costs.
Conclusions: Despite higher upfront costs, mCPNL may represent a valid, cost-effective alternative to sPCNL for select stones due to clinical and economic benefits in Canadian institutions.
Downloads
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
You, the Author(s), assign your copyright in and to the Article to the Canadian Urological Association. This means that you may not, without the prior written permission of the CUA:
- Post the Article on any Web site
- Translate or authorize a translation of the Article
- Copy or otherwise reproduce the Article, in any format, beyond what is permitted under Canadian copyright law, or authorize others to do so
- Copy or otherwise reproduce portions of the Article, including tables and figures, beyond what is permitted under Canadian copyright law, or authorize others to do so.
The CUA encourages use for non-commercial educational purposes and will not unreasonably deny any such permission request.
You retain your moral rights in and to the Article. This means that the CUA may not assert its copyright in such a way that would negatively reflect on your reputation or your right to be associated with the Article.
The CUA also requires you to warrant the following:
- That you are the Author(s) and sole owner(s), that the Article is original and unpublished and that you have not previously assigned copyright or granted a licence to any other third party;
- That all individuals who have made a substantive contribution to the article are acknowledged;
- That the Article does not infringe any proprietary right of any third party and that you have received the permissions necessary to include the work of others in the Article; and
- That the Article does not libel or violate the privacy rights of any third party.
