Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Renalof® versus Extracorporeal Shockwave Lithotripsy (ESWL) for the Treatment of Kidney Stones ≤ 1 cm in Nicaragua

Objectives: To assess the efficiency in terms of cost-effectiveness (CE) of oral Renalof® treatment versus extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy (ESWL) in the treatment of kidney stones ≤ 1 cm in Nicaragua. Methods: A cost-effectiveness economic evaluation was carried out based on the results obtained in the randomised, prospective, observational, single-blind, prospective, phase 2 clinical trial. Cost-effectiveness and the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) were calculated. Economic data were obtained from the Economics Department of Clínica Senior in Managua, Nicaragua. The monetary cost was expressed in US dollars (USD). Results: Treatment with Renalof® yielded a CE of $1,323.08/% remission, while ESWL was $9,498.54/% remission. The ICER shows that, in order to achieve a high percentage of kidney stone remission with ESWL, an extra $4,734.70 per patient must be invested. Conclusions: The use of Renalof® is shown to be a more cost-effective option than ESWL. It is recommended for the treatment of kidney stones ≤ 1 cm in size.

Comparison of tamsulosin with extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy in treating distal ureteral stones

Background Tamsulosin, an alpha-1 receptor antagonist, has been demonstrated effective in promoting distal ureteral stone passage and in reducing pain associated with stone expulsion. This study aimed to evaluate the effect of tamsulosin in comparison with nifedipine and extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy （ESWL） on the expulsion rate of distal ureteral stones at different sizes. Methods We assigned 314 patients to three categories： Ⅰ, the stone with maximal diameter of 4.0-5.9 mm; Ⅱ, 6.0-7.9 mm, and Ⅲ, 8.0-9.9 mm. Patients in each category were randomly subdivided into three treatment subgroups： group A （nifedipine group）, group B （tamsulosin group）, and group C （ESWL group）. Stone-free rate and the dose of analgesics were recorded weekly during the 4-week follow-up period. Results Three hundred and three patients completed the study. The results showed that nifedipine and tamsulosin treatments promoted a small （4-8 mm, categories Ⅰ and Ⅱ） stone expulsive rate that was comparable with ESWL treatment. Nonetheless, when the stone diameter was 8.0-9.9 mm, ESWL showed a greater stone free rate than nifedipine and tamsulosin treatments; no significant difference existed between the latter two therapies. Although the ESWL treatment group required the least analgesics, tamsulosin treatments required less pain medication than nifedipine （P 〈0.05）. Conclusions Tamsulosin treatment is recommended for patients with the stone diameter smaller than 8 mm because of its feasibility, effectiveness and safety. ESWL is more appropriate than tamsulosin therapy for the patients whose stones are larger than 8 mm.

Efficacy of pancreatoscopy for pancreatic duct stones:A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND Pancreatic duct stones can lead to significant abdominal pain for patients.Per oral pancreatoscopy(POP)-guided intracorporal lithotripsy is being increasingly used for the management of main pancreatic duct calculi(PDC)in chronic pancreatitis.POP uses two techniques:Electrohydraulic lithotripsy(EHL)and laser lithotripsy(LL).Data on the safety and efficacy are limited for this procedure.We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis with a primary aim to calculate the pooled technical and clinical success rates of POP.The secondary aim was to assess pooled rates of technical success,clinical success for the two individual techniques,and adverse event rates.AIM To perform a systematic review and meta-analysis of POP,EHL and LL for management of PDC in chronic pancreatitis.METHODS We conducted a comprehensive search of multiple electronic databases and conference proceedings including PubMed,EMBASE,Cochrane,Google Scholar and Web of Science databases(from 1999 to October 2019)to identify studies with patient age greater than 17 and any gender that reported on outcomes of POP,EHL and LL.The primary outcome assessed involved the pooled technical success and clinical success rate of POP.The secondary outcome included the pooled technical success and clinical success rate for EHL and LL.We also assessed the pooled rate of adverse events for POP,EHL and LL including a subgroup analysis for the rate of adverse event subtypes for POP:Hemorrhage,post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography pancreatitis(PEP),perforation,abdominal pain,fever and infections.Technical success was defined as the rate of clearing pancreatic duct stones and clinical success as the improvement in pain.Randomeffects model was used for analysis.Heterogeneity between study-specific estimates was calculated using the Cochran Q statistical test and I2 statistics.Publication bias was ascertained,qualitatively by visual inspection of funnel plot and quantitatively by the Egger test.RESULTS A total of 16 studies including 383 patients met the inclusion criteria.The technical success rate of POP was 76.4%(95%CI:65.9-84.5;I2=64%)and clinical success rate was 76.8%(95%CI:65.2-85.4;I2=66%).The technical success rate of EHL was 70.3%(95%CI:57.8-80.3;I2=36%)and clinical success rate of EHL was 66.5%(95%CI:55.2-76.2;I2=19%).The technical success rate of LL was 89.3%(95%CI:70.5-96.7;I2=70%)and clinical success rate of LL was 88.2%(95%CI:66.4-96.6;I2=77%).The incidence of pooled adverse events for POP was 14.9%(95%CI:9.2-23.2;I2=49%),for EHL was 11.2%(95%CI:5.9-20.3;I2=15%)and for LL was 13.1%(95%CI:6.3-25.4;I2=31%).Subgroup analysis of adverse events showed rates of PEP at 7%(95%CI:3.5-13.6;I2=38%),fever at 3.7%(95%CI:2-6.9;I2=0),abdominal pain at 4.7%(95%CI:2.7-7.8;I2=0),perforation at 4.3%(95%CI:2.1-8.4;I2=0),hemorrhage at 3.4%(95%CI:1.7-6.6;I2=0)and no mortality.There was evidence of publication bias based on funnel plot analysis and Egger’s test.CONCLUSION Our study highlights the high technical and clinical success rates for POP,EHL and LL.POP-guided lithotripsy could be a viable option for management of chronic pancreatitis with PDC.

Using cholecystokinin to facilitate endoscopic clearance of large common bile duct stones

AIM: To evaluate the effect of cholecystokinin (CCK) during extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy (ESWL) in the clearance of common bile duct (CBD) stones in endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP).

Comparative evaluation of urolithiasis management options in patients with horseshoe kidney:A systematic review and meta-analysis

Background:Horseshoe kidney is a rare congenital anomaly commonly complicated by urolithiasis.Extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy(ESWL),ureteroscopy(URS),and percutaneous nephrolithotomy(PCNL)are treatment options for horseshoe kidney stones.The aim of this systematic review is to compare the benefits and risks of these management options.Methods:MEDLINE,EMBASE,and Cochrane Library databases were searched from inception to February 2022.A total of 516 nonduplicate studies were screened against the inclusion and exclusion criteria.Studies comparing at least 2 interventions with>10 patients per intervention were included.Results:Nine retrospective observational studies published from 2007 to 2021 with a total of 565 patients were included.Reported mean±SD or mean(range)stone sizes ranged between 17.90±2.43 mm and 27.9±8.6 mm for PCNL,8.4(2-25)mm and 22.3±9.1 mm for URS,and 11.9±2.0 mm and 16.8±4.4 mm for ESWL.There was no difference in single-session and overall stone-free rate(SFR)between PCNL and URS,with a risk ratio of 1.04(95%confidence interval,0.95-1.13;I2=20.63%).Ureteroscopy had better stone clearance than ESWL,with an overall SFR risk ratio of1.38(95%confidence interval,1.04-1.82;I2=0%).There was no statistically significant difference in overall SFR between PCNL and ESWL.Most patients who underwent URS and ESWL experienced Clavien-Dindo(CD)gradeⅠ-Ⅱcomplications.Percutaneous nephrolithotomy was associated with the highest complication rates,including 5 CD gradeⅢand 3 CD gradeⅣcomplications and a mean postoperative hemoglobin drop of 0.47 to 1.83 g/dL.There were no CD grade V complications across all studies.Conclusions:There was no difference in SFR between PCNL and URS.Ureteroscopy was associated with a smaller stone burden and fewer and less severe complications.Ureteroscopy was found to be more effective than ESWL with a higher SFR and comparable safety profile.Further large-scale randomized controlled trials are needed to confirm these findings.