Cost effectiveness of extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy and percutaneous nephrolithotomy for medium-sized kidney stones. A randomised clinical trial. Prospective, randomized trial comparing shock wave lithotripsy and ureteroscopy for lower pole caliceal calculi 1 cm or less.
To evaluate percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PNL) and extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL) for their clinical effects, their cost effectiveness, their complication rates, and the patients' experiences, 55 consecutive patients were randomised to have one or other operation between October 1986 and October 1988. Six patients were excluded, 21 were treated with PNL and 28 with ESWL as primary treatment. Mean hospital stay and length of treatment were longer for PNL than for ESWL. Since 1 July 1987 all patients having ESWL have been treated without anaesthesia (n = 15), whereas epidural anaesthesia was used for all PNL. Slightly more of the ESWL patients experienced some pain during treatment. Minor complications or pain were more common after ESWL during the first 10 days after discharge from hospital. If patients with stone fragments of 4 mm or less were regarded as having a successful outcome, the success rates after one year were 94% for PNL and 77% for ESWL. The overall total cost was lower for ESWL than for PNL, the cost per successfully treated patient being 2172 pounds for PNL and 1810 pounds for ESWL. Medium sized kidney stones (6-30 mm, or 2-3 stones of 20 mm or less) can be efficiently and cheaply treated by both PNL and ESWL, though the cost of ESWL is lower. Even if effects other than cost (such as complications and patients' experience) are borne in mind, ESWL was superior to PNL for this group of patients. The optimal management of lower pole renal calculi is controversial. We compared shock wave lithotripsy (SWL) and ureteroscopy (URS) for the treatment of patients with small lower pole stones in a prospective, randomized, multicenter trial.
                A total of 78 patients with 1 cm or less isolated lower pole stones were randomized to SWL or URS. The primary outcome measure was stone-free rate on noncontrast computerized tomography at 3 months. Secondary outcome parameters were length of stay, complication rates, need for secondary procedures and patient derived quality of life measures.
                A total of 67 patients randomized to SWL (32) or URS (35) completed treatment. The 2 groups were comparable with respect to age, sex, body mass index, side treated and stone surface area. Operative time was significantly shorter for SWL than URS (66 vs 90 minutes). At 3 months of followup 26 and 32 patients who underwent SWL and URS had radiographic followup that demonstrated a stone-free rate of 35% and 50%, respectively (p not significant). Intraoperative complications occurred in 1 SWL case (unable to target stone) and in 7 URS cases (failed access in 5 and perforation in 2), while postoperative complications occurred in 7 SWL and 7 URS cases. Patient derived quality of life measures favored SWL.
                This study failed to demonstrate a statistically significant difference in stone-free rates between SWL and URS for the treatment of small lower pole renal calculi. However, SWL was associated with greater patient acceptance and shorter convalescence.
Results from three small studies, with low methodological quality, indicated ESWL is less effective for lower pole kidney stones than PCNL but not significantly different from RIRS. Hospital stay and duration of treatment was less with ESWL. More RCTs are required to investigate the effectiveness and complications of ESWL for kidney stones compared to PCNL or RIRS.