Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34432135›Full record

ArticleWorld journal of urology2022

Cost analysis between mini-percutaneous nephrolithotomy with and without vacuum-assisted access sheath.

Elena Lievore, Stefano Paolo Zanetti, Irene Fulgheri, Matteo Turetti, Carlo Silvani, Carolina Bebi, Francesco Ripa, Gianpaolo Lucignani, Edoardo Pozzi, Lorenzo Rocchini and 6 more

Abstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in World journal of urology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
14citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

14 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

16 authors.

Elena LievoreDepartment of Urology, IRCCS Foundation Ca' Granda, Ospedale Maggiore Policlinico, University of Milan, Via della Commenda 15, 20122, Milan, Italy.
Stefano Paolo ZanettiDepartment of Urology, IRCCS Foundation Ca' Granda, Ospedale Maggiore Policlinico, University of Milan, Via della Commenda 15, 20122, Milan, Italy.
Irene FulgheriDepartment of Radiology, Foundation IRCCS Ca' Granda - Ospedale Maggiore Policlinico, Milan, Italy.
Matteo TurettiDepartment of Urology, IRCCS Foundation Ca' Granda, Ospedale Maggiore Policlinico, University of Milan, Via della Commenda 15, 20122, Milan, Italy.
Carlo SilvaniDepartment of Urology, IRCCS Foundation Ca' Granda, Ospedale Maggiore Policlinico, University of Milan, Via della Commenda 15, 20122, Milan, Italy.
Carolina BebiDepartment of Urology, IRCCS Foundation Ca' Granda, Ospedale Maggiore Policlinico, University of Milan, Via della Commenda 15, 20122, Milan, Italy.
Francesco RipaDepartment of Urology, IRCCS Foundation Ca' Granda, Ospedale Maggiore Policlinico, University of Milan, Via della Commenda 15, 20122, Milan, Italy.
Gianpaolo LucignaniDepartment of Urology, IRCCS Foundation Ca' Granda, Ospedale Maggiore Policlinico, University of Milan, Via della Commenda 15, 20122, Milan, Italy.
Edoardo PozziDivision of Experimental Oncology/Unit of Urology, URI, IRCCS Ospedale San Raffaele, University Vita-Salute San Raffaele, Milan, Italy.
Lorenzo RocchiniDepartment of Urology, IRCCS Foundation Ca' Granda, Ospedale Maggiore Policlinico, University of Milan, Via della Commenda 15, 20122, Milan, Italy.
Elisa De LorenzisDepartment of Urology, IRCCS Foundation Ca' Granda, Ospedale Maggiore Policlinico, University of Milan, Via della Commenda 15, 20122, Milan, Italy.
Giancarlo AlboDepartment of Urology, IRCCS Foundation Ca' Granda, Ospedale Maggiore Policlinico, University of Milan, Via della Commenda 15, 20122, Milan, Italy.
Fabrizio LongoDepartment of Urology, IRCCS Foundation Ca' Granda, Ospedale Maggiore Policlinico, University of Milan, Via della Commenda 15, 20122, Milan, Italy.
Andrea SaloniaDivision of Experimental Oncology/Unit of Urology, URI, IRCCS Ospedale San Raffaele, University Vita-Salute San Raffaele, Milan, Italy.
Emanuele MontanariDepartment of Urology, IRCCS Foundation Ca' Granda, Ospedale Maggiore Policlinico, University of Milan, Via della Commenda 15, 20122, Milan, Italy.
Luca BoeriDepartment of Urology, IRCCS Foundation Ca' Granda, Ospedale Maggiore Policlinico, University of Milan, Via della Commenda 15, 20122, Milan, Italy. dr.lucaboeri@gmail.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0040-784X

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeTo perform a cost analysis between vacuum-assisted percutaneous nephrolithotomy (vmPCNL) and minimally invasive PCNL (MIP) and explore potential predictors of costs associated with the procedures.

methodsWe analyzed data from 225 patients who underwent vmPCNL or MIP at a single tertiary referral academic center between January 2016 and December 2020. We collected patients' demographics, peri-and postoperative data and detailed expense records. After propensity score matching, 108 (66.7%) vmPCNL and 54 (33.3%) MIP procedures were analyzed. Descriptive statistics assessed differences in clinical and operative parameters. Univariable and multivariable linear regression models tested the association between clinical variables and costs.

resultsOperative time (OT) was shorter for vmPCNL, and the use of additional instruments to complete litholapaxy was more frequent in MIP (all p ≤ 0.01). Length of stay (LOS) was longer for MIP patients (p = 0.03) and the stone-free (SF) rate was higher after vmPCNL (p = 0.04). The overall instrumentation cost was higher for vmPCNL (p < 0.001), but total procedural costs were equivalent (p = 0.9). However, the overall cost for the hospitalization was higher for MIP than vmPCNL (p = 0.01). Univariable linear regression revealed that patient's comorbidities, OT, any postoperative complication and LOS were associated with hospitalization costs (all p < 0.001). Multivariable linear regression analysis revealed that LOS and OT were associated with hospitalization costs (all p < 0.001), after accounting for vmPCNL procedure, patients' comorbidities, and complications.

conclusionvmPCNL may represent a valid option due to clinical and economic benefits. Shorter OT, the lower need for disposable equipment and the lower complication rate reduced procedural and hospitalization costs.

Indexed as

Costs and Cost AnalysisHospital CostsAdultAgedAged, 80 and overFemaleHumansKidney CalculiMaleMiddle AgedNephrolithotomy, PercutaneousRetrospective StudiesVacuumYoung AdultCost analysisInfectious complicationsPercutaneous nephrolithotomyUrolithiasisVacuum-assisted percutaneous nephrolithotomy

Identifiers

PMID34432135
PMCPMC8813798

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.