Online citations, reference lists, and bibliographies.

Percutaneous Nephrostolithotomy: An Assessment Of Costs For Prone And Galdakao-modified Supine Valdivia Positioning.

Justin I. Friedlander, Brian D. Duty, Arthur D. Smith, Zeph Okeke
Published 2012 · Medicine
Cite This
Download PDF
Analyze on Scholarcy
Share
OBJECTIVE To examine the relative costs of prone percutaneous nephrostolithotomy (PCNL) versus PCNL performed with the patient in the Galdakao-modified supine Valdivia (GMSV) position to determine whether a cost differential exists. METHODS We compared prone PCNL with PCNL using GMSV positioning. Cost data were obtained from the urology departmental and hospital billing offices at our institution and from the 2011 local Medicare reimbursement scales. The costs were divided into 5 major categories: surgeon fees, anesthesia fees, surgical supplies, hospital-related fees, and lost revenue. RESULTS The overall cost of prone PCNL ranged from $23 423 to $24 463, and the cost for PCNL performed with GMSV positioning ranged from $24 725 to $25 830. The difference between the 2 positions ranged from approximately $1302 for stones ≤ 2 cm to $1367 for stones >2 cm. The lost office revenue because of the requirement for a second surgeon was estimated at $1987. CONCLUSION Our assessment of the cost for prone versus GMSV PCNL technique found GMSV positioning to be more costly. The presence of 2 surgeons was the main driver of the cost differential, because it resulted in more equipment use, with greater instrument repair costs and higher surgeon fees. It also brings into consideration the opportunity cost of having a second surgeon in the operating room and not in the office.
This paper references
10.1097/01.ju.0000161171.67806.2a
Chapter 1: AUA guideline on management of staghorn calculi: diagnosis and treatment recommendations.
Glenn M. Preminger (2005)
10.1016/j.eururo.2008.07.073
Endoscopic combined intrarenal surgery in Galdakao-modified supine Valdivia position: a new standard for percutaneous nephrolithotomy?
Cesare Marco Scoffone (2008)
10.1080/21681805.1976.11882084
Percutaneous Pyelolithotomy.
Ingmar Fernström (1976)
10.1016/j.urology.2011.06.019
Anatomical variation between the prone, supine, and supine oblique positions on computed tomography: implications for percutaneous nephrolithotomy access.
Brian D. Duty (2012)
10.1016/j.urology.2005.05.033
Location and etiology of flexible and semirigid ureteroscope damage.
Jeffrey C. Sung (2005)
10.1016/j.eururo.2008.01.067
Modified supine versus prone position in percutaneous nephrolithotomy for renal stones treatable with a single percutaneous access: a prospective randomized trial.
Marco de Sio (2008)
10.1016/S0022-5347(01)62217-1
TECHNIQUE AND COMPLICATIONS OF PERCUTANEOUS NEPHROSCOPY: EXPERIENCE WITH 557 PATIENTS IN THE SUPINE POSITION
José Gabriel Valdivia Uría (1998)
10.1016/j.eururo.2006.10.020
Complications in percutaneous nephrolithotomy.
Maurice Stephan Michel (2007)
10.1007/S00120-0011-2644-1
INTERNATIONAL COOPERATION IN ENDOUROLOGY: SUPINE VS. PRONE PERCUTANEOUS NEPHROLITHOTOMY IN OBESE PATIENTS
Francesco Sanquedolce (2011)
10.1089/end.2007.9936
Third prize: contemporary percutaneous nephrolithotripsy: 1585 procedures in 1338 consecutive patients.
M. Duvdevani (2007)
10.1089/end.2008.0463
Complete supine percutaneous nephrolithotripsy comparison with the prone standard technique.
Siavash Falahatkar (2008)
10.1016/j.eururo.2011.04.031
Modified supine percutaneous nephrolithotomy for large kidney and ureteral stones: technique and results.
András Hoznek (2012)
10.1089/end.2010.0292
Systematic review and meta-analysis of percutaneous nephrolithotomy for patients in the supine versus prone position.
Liangren Liu (2010)
10.1111/j.1464-410X.2007.06960.x
Supine Valdivia and modified lithotomy position for simultaneous anterograde and retrograde endourological access
Athanasios Papatsoris (2007)
10.1089/end.2008.0489
Ureteroscope cleaning and sterilization by the urology operating room team: the effect on repair costs.
Michelle Jo Semins (2009)
10.1016/S0090-4295(03)00376-5
Evaluation of overall costs of currently available small flexible ureteroscopes.
Jaime Landman (2003)
10.1089/end.2009.1526
Percutaneous lithotripsy in Valdivia-Galdakao decubitus position: our experience.
F. Daels (2009)
10.1016/J.EURURO.2007.06.049
Classification of percutaneous nephrolithotomy complications using the modified clavien grading system: looking for a standard.
Ahmet Hamdi Tefekli (2008)
10.1016/j.juro.2009.05.021
Percutaneous nephrostolithotomy versus flexible ureteroscopy/holmium laser lithotripsy: cost and outcome analysis.
Elias S. Hyams (2009)
10.22037/uj.v6i2.245
Supine percutaneous nephrolithotomy, is it really effective? A systematic review of literature.
Basiri Abas (2009)
10.1016/S1569-9056(11)60144-9
141 INTERNATIONAL COOPERATION IN ENDOUROLOGY: SUPINE VS. PRONE PERCUTANEOUS NEPHROLITHOTOMY IN OBESE PATIENTS
F. Sangedolce (2011)
10.1016/J.JURO.2011.02.1243
1396 COST CONTROL USING FLEXIBLE URETEROSCOPY ON A LARGER, MORE COMPLEX STONE BURDEN
Tim Ruddell (2011)
10.1016/j.eururo.2008.08.012
Beyond prone position in percutaneous nephrolithotomy: a comprehensive review.
Jean J.M.C.H. de la Rosette (2008)
10.1016/j.juro.2011.02.2693
The debate over percutaneous nephrolithotomy positioning: a comprehensive review.
Brian D. Duty (2011)
10.1089/end.2011.0110
Supine versus prone position during percutaneous nephrolithotomy: a report from the clinical research office of the endourological society percutaneous nephrolithotomy global study.
José González Valdivia (2011)
10.1089/end.2009.0571
Position: prone or supine is the issue of percutaneous nephrolithotomy.
Roberto Miano (2010)
10.1016/j.juro.2006.03.059
Frequency of ureteroscope damage seen at a tertiary care center.
Robert I. Carey (2006)
10.1016/J.JURO.2007.07.014
An independent analysis of flexible cystoscope repairs and cost.
Benjamin K. Canales (2007)



This paper is referenced by
Semantic Scholar Logo Some data provided by SemanticScholar