Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Economic Considerations in the Management of Nephrolithiasis

  • Kidney Diseases (G Ciancio, Section Editor)
  • Published:
Current Urology Reports Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose of Review

From health systems to individuals, nephrolithiasis is economically burdensome. The aim of the current paper is to characterize the financial burden of disease associated with nephrolithiasis with an emphasis on investigating treatment modality economic efficiency.

Recent Findings

For small volume practices and cases where there is high risk of scope damage, disposable flexible ureteroscope utilization seems to provide economic efficiency.

Summary

The rise in global prevalence of stone disease is a large contributing factor to increasing costs associated with nephrolithiasis. A large proportion of costs from kidney stones stem from ED visits and inpatient care. There are opportunities to save money by transitioning care to outpatient settings in scenarios that allow such transition. Metaphylaxis and prevention strategies are effective at lowering costs in properly selected patient populations. Flexible ureteroscopy and percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL) are the most economically efficient methods of surgically treating stone disease, with PCNL being reserved for large and lower pole stones. Time off work and other indirect costs, while challenging to quantify, are important considerations in the economics of nephrolithiasis.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

Papers of particular interest, published recently, have been highlighted as: • Of importance •• Of major importance

  1. Pearle MS, Calhoun EA, Curhan GC. Urologic Diseases of America P. Urologic diseases in America project: urolithiasis. J Urol. 2005;173(3):848–57.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Kelly C, Geraghty RM, Somani BK. Nephrolithiasis in the obese patient. Curr Urol Rep. 2019;20(7):36.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Clark JY. Renal calculi in army aviators. Aviat Space Environ Med. 1990;61(8):744–7.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Bansal AD, Hui J, Goldfarb DS. Asymptomatic nephrolithiasis detected by ultrasound. Clin J Am Soc Nephrol. 2009;4(3):680–4.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  5. Boyce CJ, Pickhardt PJ, Lawrence EM, Kim DH, Bruce RJ. Prevalence of urolithiasis in asymptomatic adults: objective determination using low dose noncontrast computerized tomography. J Urol. 2010;183(3):1017–21.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Ziemba JB, Matlaga BR. Epidemiology and economics of nephrolithiasis. Investig Clin Urol. 2017;58(5):299–306.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  7. Scales CD Jr, Smith AC, Hanley JM, Saigal CS. Urologic Diseases in America P. Prevalence of kidney stones in the United States. Eur Urol. 2012;62(1):160–5.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  8. Tasian GE, Ross ME, Song L, Sas DJ, Keren R, Denburg MR, et al. Annual incidence of nephrolithiasis among children and adults in South Carolina from 1997 to 2012. Clin J Am Soc Nephrol. 2016;11(3):488–96.

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  9. •• Kittanamongkolchai W, Vaughan LE, Enders FT, Dhondup T, Mehta RA, Krambeck AE, et al. The changing incidence and presentation of urinary stones over 3 decades. Mayo Clin Proc. 2018;93(3):291–9. Highlights important, contemporary epidemiological trends in stone disease.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  10. Balthazar P, Sadigh G, Hughes D, Rosenkrantz AB, Hanna T, Duszak R Jr. Increasing use, geographic variation, and disparities in emergency department CT for suspected urolithiasis. J Am Coll Radiol. 2019;16(11):1547–53.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Luckenbaugh AN, Yan PL, Dauw CA, Ghani KR, Hollenbeck BK, Hollingsworth JM. Followup care after emergency department visits for kidney stones: a missed opportunity. Urol Pract. 2019;6(1):24–8.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Scales CD Jr, Lin L, Saigal CS, Bennett CJ, Ponce NA, Mangione CM, et al. Emergency department revisits for patients with kidney stones in California. Acad Emerg Med. 2015;22(4):468–74.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  13. Fan B, Yang D, Wang J, Che X, Li X, Wang L, et al. Can tamsulosin facilitate expulsion of ureteral stones? A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Int J Urol. 2013;20(8):818–30.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Bensalah K, Pearle M, Lotan Y. Cost-effectiveness of medical expulsive therapy using alpha-blockers for the treatment of distal ureteral stones. Eur Urol. 2008;53(2):411–8.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Hollingsworth JM, Norton EC, Kaufman SR, Smith RM, Wolf JS Jr, Hollenbeck BK. Medical expulsive therapy versus early endoscopic stone removal for acute renal colic: an instrumental variable analysis. J Urol. 2013;190(3):882–7.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Lotan Y, Pearle MS. Cost-effectiveness of primary prevention strategies for nephrolithiasis. J Urol. 2011;186(2):550–5.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Lotan Y, Buendia Jimenez I, Lenoir-Wijnkoop I, Daudon M, Molinier L, Tack I, et al. Primary prevention of nephrolithiasis is cost-effective for a national healthcare system. BJU Int. 2012;110(11 Pt C):E1060–7.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Lotan Y. Economics and cost of care of stone disease. Adv Chronic Kidney Dis. 2009;16(1):5–10.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Pearle MS, Goldfarb DS, Assimos DG, Curhan G, Denu-Ciocca CJ, Matlaga BR, et al. Medical management of kidney stones: AUA guideline. J Urol. 2014;192(2):316–24.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Chandhoke PS. When is medical prophylaxis cost-effective for recurrent calcium stones? J Urol. 2002;168(3):937–40.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Lotan Y, Cadeddu JA, Roerhborn CG, Pak CY, Pearle MS. Cost-effectiveness of medical management strategies for nephrolithiasis. J Urol. 2004;172(6 Pt 1):2275–81.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Lotan Y, Cadeddu JA, Pearle MS. International comparison of cost effectiveness of medical management strategies for nephrolithiasis. Urol Res. 2005;33(3):223–30.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Strohmaier WL. Economic aspects of evidence-based metaphylaxis. Urol A. 2006;45(11):1406–9.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Strohmaier WL. Socioeconomic aspects of urinary calculi and metaphylaxis of urinary calculi. Urol A. 2000;39(2):166–70.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Strohmaier WL. Economics of stone disease/treatment. Arab J Urol. 2012;10(3):273–8.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  26. Borghi L, Schianchi T, Meschi T, Guerra A, Allegri F, Maggiore U, et al. Comparison of two diets for the prevention of recurrent stones in idiopathic hypercalciuria. N Engl J Med. 2002;346(2):77–84.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Taylor EN, Fung TT, Curhan GC. DASH-style diet associates with reduced risk for kidney stones. J Am Soc Nephrol. 2009;20(10):2253–9.

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  28. Pauly MV, Burns LR. Price transparency for medical devices. Health Aff (Millwood). 2008;27(6):1544–53.

    Google Scholar 

  29. Robinson JC. Value-based purchasing for medical devices. Health Aff (Millwood). 2008;27(6):1523–31.

    Google Scholar 

  30. Landman J, Lee DI, Lee C, Monga M. Evaluation of overall costs of currently available small flexible ureteroscopes. Urology. 2003;62(2):218–22.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Collins JW, Keeley FX Jr, Timoney A. Cost analysis of flexible ureterorenoscopy. BJU Int. 2004;93(7):1023–6.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Gurbuz C, Atis G, Arikan O, Efilioglu O, Yildirim A, Danacioglu O, et al. The cost analysis of flexible ureteroscopic lithotripsy in 302 cases. Urolithiasis. 2014;42(2):155–8.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Somani BK, Robertson A, Kata SG. Decreasing the cost of flexible ureterorenoscopic procedures. Urology. 2011;78(3):528–30.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. User HM, Hua V, Blunt LW, Wambi C, Gonzalez CM, Nadler RB. Performance and durability of leading flexible ureteroscopes. J Endourol. 2004;18(8):735–8.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Antonelli JA. Innovations in surgical stone disease. Curr Opin Urol. 2016;26(3):240–7.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Isaacson D, Ahmad T, Metzler I, Tzou DT, Taguchi K, Usawachintachit M, et al. Defining the costs of reusable flexible ureteroscope reprocessing using time-driven activity-based costing. J Endourol. 2017;31(10):1026–31.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  37. Kramolowsky E, McDowell Z, Moore B, Booth B, Wood N. Cost analysis of flexible ureteroscope repairs: evaluation of 655 procedures in a community-based practice. J Endourol. 2016;30(3):254–6.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Tosoian JJ, Ludwig W, Sopko N, Mullins JK, Matlaga BR. The effect of repair costs on the profitability of a ureteroscopy program. J Endourol. 2015;29(4):406–9.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Sung JC, Springhart WP, Marguet CG, L'Esperance JO, Tan YH, Albala DM, et al. Location and etiology of flexible and semirigid ureteroscope damage. Urology. 2005;66(5):958–63.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Monga M, Best S, Venkatesh R, Ames C, Lee C, Kuskowski M, et al. Durability of flexible ureteroscopes: a randomized, prospective study. J Urol. 2006;176(1):137–41.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Carey RI, Gomez CS, Maurici G, Lynne CM, Leveillee RJ, Bird VG. Frequency of ureteroscope damage seen at a tertiary care center. J Urol. 2006;176(2):607–10 discussion 10.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Defidio L, De Dominicis M, Di Gianfrancesco L, Fuchs G, Patel A. Improving flexible ureterorenoscope durability up to 100 procedures. J Endourol. 2012;26(10):1329–34.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Multescu R, Geavlete B, Georgescu D, Geavlete P. Improved durability of flex-Xc digital flexible ureteroscope: how long can you expect it to last? Urology. 2014;84(1):32–5.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. •• Martin CJ, SB MA, Abdul-Muhsin H, Lim VM, Nunez-Nateras R, Tyson MD, et al. The economic implications of a reusable flexible digital ureteroscope: a cost-benefit analysis. J Urol. 2017;197(3 Pt 1):730–5. Disposable flexible ureteroscopes are most economically beneficial at centers with low case volume, yet are valuable in high volume centers when cases pose a high risk of damage to the scope.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. • Hennessey DB, Fojecki GL, Papa NP, Lawrentschuk N, Bolton D. Single-use disposable digital flexible ureteroscopes: an ex vivo assessment and cost analysis. BJU Int. 2018;121(Suppl 3):55–61. The LithoVue disposable ureteroscope device is equivalent to reusable ureteroscopes by technical standards and purchase price is the most important determinant of the economic benefit of disposable scopes.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Ozimek T, Schneider MH, Hupe MC, Wiessmeyer JR, Cordes J, Chlosta PL, et al. Retrospective cost analysis of a single-center reusable flexible ureterorenoscopy program: a comparative cost simulation of disposable fURS as an alternative. J Endourol. 2017;31(12):1226–30.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. • Taguchi K, Usawachintachit M, Tzou DT, Sherer BA, Metzler I, Isaacson D, et al. Micro-costing analysis demonstrates comparable costs for LithoVue compared to reusable flexible fiberoptic ureteroscopes. J Endourol. 2018;32(4):267–73. Acquisition costs of disposable ureteroscopes are higher, yet savings are realized in the areas of maintenance, labor, and consumables. The cost per case of using a disposable and a reusable ureteroscope are very similar.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. Al-Balushi K, Martin N, Loubon H, Baboudjian M, Michel F, Sichez PC, et al. Comparative medico-economic study of reusable vs. single-use flexible ureteroscopes. Int Urol Nephrol. 2019;51(10):1735–41.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. Preminger GM, Assimos DG, Lingeman JE, Nakada SY, Pearle MS, Wolf JS Jr, et al. Chapter 1: AUA guideline on management of staghorn calculi: diagnosis and treatment recommendations. J Urol. 2005;173(6):1991–2000.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  50. Kim SC, Kuo RL, Lingeman JE. Percutaneous nephrolithotomy: an update. Curr Opin Urol. 2003;13(3):235–41.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  51. Koo V, Beattie I, Young M. Improved cost-effectiveness and efficiency with a slower shockwave delivery rate. BJU Int. 2010;105(5):692–6.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  52. Lotan Y, Pearle MS. Economics of stone management. Urol Clin North Am. 2007;34(3):443–53.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  53. Hyams ES, Shah O. Percutaneous nephrostolithotomy versus flexible ureteroscopy/holmium laser lithotripsy: cost and outcome analysis. J Urol. 2009;182(3):1012–7.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  54. Akman T, Binbay M, Akcay M, Tekinarslan E, Kezer C, Ozgor F, et al. Variables that influence operative time during percutaneous nephrolithotomy: an analysis of 1897 cases. J Endourol. 2011;25(8):1269–73.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  55. Tanriverdi O, Boylu U, Kendirci M, Kadihasanoglu M, Horasanli K, Miroglu C. The learning curve in the training of percutaneous nephrolithotomy. Eur Urol. 2007;52(1):206–11.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  56. Raman JD, Bagrodia A, Bensalah K, Pearle MS, Lotan Y. Residual fragments after percutaneous nephrolithotomy: cost comparison of immediate second look flexible nephroscopy versus expectant management. J Urol. 2010;183(1):188–93.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  57. May DJ, Chandhoke PS. Efficacy and cost-effectiveness of extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy for solitary lower pole renal calculi. J Urol. 1998;159(1):24–7.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  58. Lotan Y, Gettman MT, Roehrborn CG, Cadeddu JA, Pearle MS. Management of ureteral calculi: a cost comparison and decision making analysis. J Urol. 2002;167(4):1621–9.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  59. Huang CY, Chen SS, Chen LK. Cost-effectiveness of treating ureteral stones in a Taipei City Hospital: shock wave lithotripsy versus ureteroscopy plus lithoclast. Urol Int. 2009;83(4):410–5.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  60. Parker BD, Frederick RW, Reilly TP, Lowry PS, Bird ET. Efficiency and cost of treating proximal ureteral stones: shock wave lithotripsy versus ureteroscopy plus holmium:yttrium-aluminum-garnet laser. Urology. 2004;64(6):1102–6 discussion 6.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  61. Izamin I, Aniza I, Rizal AM, Aljunid SM. Comparing extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy and ureteroscopy for treatment of proximal ureteric calculi: a cost-effectiveness study. Med J Malaysia. 2009;64(1):12–21.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  62. Wu CF, Chen CS, Lin WY, Shee JJ, Lin CL, Chen Y, et al. Therapeutic options for proximal ureter stone: extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy versus semirigid ureterorenoscope with holmium:yttrium-aluminum-garnet laser lithotripsy. Urology. 2005;65(6):1075–9.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  63. Bierkens AF, Hendrikx AJ, De La Rosette JJ, Stultiens GN, Beerlage HP, Arends AJ, et al. Treatment of mid- and lower ureteric calculi: extracorporeal shock-wave lithotripsy vs laser ureteroscopy. A comparison of costs, morbidity and effectiveness. Br J Urol. 1998;81(1):31–5.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  64. Wolf JS Jr, Carroll PR, Stoller ML. Cost-effectiveness v patient preference in the choice of treatment for distal ureteral calculi: a literature-based decision analysis. J Endourol. 1995;9(3):243–8.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  65. Chang CP, Huang SH, Tai HL, Wang BF, Yen MY, Huang KH, et al. Optimal treatment for distal ureteral calculi: extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy versus ureteroscopy. J Endourol. 2001;15(6):563–6.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  66. Matlaga BR, Jansen JP, Meckley LM, Byrne TW, Lingeman JE. Economic outcomes of treatment for ureteral and renal stones: a systematic literature review. J Urol. 2012;188(2):449–54.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  67. Curhan GC. Epidemiology of stone disease. Urol Clin North Am. 2007;34(3):287–93.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  68. Resnick MI, Persky L. Summary of the National Institutes of Arthritis, Diabetes, Digestive and Kidney Diseases conference on urolithiasis: state of the art and future research needs. J Urol. 1995;153(1):4–9.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  69. Saigal CS, Joyce G, Timilsina AR. Urologic Diseases in America P. Direct and indirect costs of nephrolithiasis in an employed population: opportunity for disease management? Kidney Int. 2005;68(4):1808–14.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Perelman School of Medicine at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA

    Daniel Roberson, Colin Sperling, Ankur Shah & Justin Ziemba

  2. Division of Urology, Department of Surgery, Perelman Center for Advanced Medicine, Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania, University of Pennsylvania, 3400 Civic Center Blvd., Philadelphia, PA, 19104, USA

    Daniel Roberson, Colin Sperling, Ankur Shah & Justin Ziemba

Authors
  1. Daniel Roberson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Colin Sperling
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Ankur Shah
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Justin Ziemba
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Justin Ziemba.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.

Human and Animal Rights and Informed Consent

This article does not contain any studies with human or animal subjects performed by any of the authors.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

This article is part of the Topical Collection on Kidney Diseases

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Roberson, D., Sperling, C., Shah, A. et al. Economic Considerations in the Management of Nephrolithiasis. Curr Urol Rep 21, 18 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11934-020-00971-6

Download citation

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11934-020-00971-6

Keywords

Search

Navigation