Current management of urolithiasis: Progress or regress?

Kurt Kerbl, Jamil Rehman, Jaime Landman, David Lee, Chandru Sundaram, Ralph V. Clayman

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

111 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Purpose: To assess the impact of the development of less powerful second- and third-generation shockwave lithotripters on surgical stone therapy in light of recent advances in ureteroscopy and laser lithotripsy. As such, we sought to identify current trends in the treatment of stone disease, both at our university medical center and nationally, and to contrast them with the corresponding data from 1990. Patients and Methods: All urolithiasis procedures (ureteroscopy, SWL, open surgery, and percutaneous stone removal) performed in 1998 were compared with all urolithiasis procedures performed 8 years earlier (1990) at a single institution (Washington University, St. Louis). In addition, Medicare data for each year from 1988 through 2000 were collected from the Health Care Financing Administration to assess the national trends for open stone surgery, ureteroscopic stone removal, SWL, and percutaneous nephrolithotomy. Results: At Washington University, the number of percutaneous stone removals remained stable; however, the overall number of ureteroscopies increased by 53%, while the number of SWLs, decreased by 15%. The Medicare data likewise reflect a marked decrease in open stone surgery and a marked increase in ureteroscopic stone surgery with a slight increase in SWL. Utilization of percutaneous nephrolithotomy remained unchanged. Conclusions: We believe this trend toward ureteroscopy is attributable to several factors: improved, smaller rigid and flexible ureteroscopes; the availability of more effective intracorporeal lithotripters (e.g., pneumatic and holmium laser), and the lack of development of lower cost, more effective SWL. This is an unfortunate trend, as we are moving away from the noninvasive treatment that was the hallmark of urolithiasis therapy at the beginning of the last decade toward more invasive endoscopic therapy. Increased research efforts in SWL technology are sorely needed.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)281-288
Number of pages8
JournalJournal of Endourology
Volume16
Issue number5
StatePublished - Jun 2002
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

Ureteroscopy
Urolithiasis
Percutaneous Nephrostomy
Medicare
Laser Lithotripsy
Ureteroscopes
Therapeutics
Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (U.S.)
Solid-State Lasers
Technology
Costs and Cost Analysis
Research

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Urology

Cite this

Kerbl, K., Rehman, J., Landman, J., Lee, D., Sundaram, C., & Clayman, R. V. (2002). Current management of urolithiasis: Progress or regress? Journal of Endourology, 16(5), 281-288.

Current management of urolithiasis : Progress or regress? / Kerbl, Kurt; Rehman, Jamil; Landman, Jaime; Lee, David; Sundaram, Chandru; Clayman, Ralph V.

In: Journal of Endourology, Vol. 16, No. 5, 06.2002, p. 281-288.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Kerbl, K, Rehman, J, Landman, J, Lee, D, Sundaram, C & Clayman, RV 2002, 'Current management of urolithiasis: Progress or regress?', Journal of Endourology, vol. 16, no. 5, pp. 281-288.
Kerbl K, Rehman J, Landman J, Lee D, Sundaram C, Clayman RV. Current management of urolithiasis: Progress or regress? Journal of Endourology. 2002 Jun;16(5):281-288.
Kerbl, Kurt ; Rehman, Jamil ; Landman, Jaime ; Lee, David ; Sundaram, Chandru ; Clayman, Ralph V. / Current management of urolithiasis : Progress or regress?. In: Journal of Endourology. 2002 ; Vol. 16, No. 5. pp. 281-288.
@article{34e3f605c25f40748845b7aafc2baf23,
title = "Current management of urolithiasis: Progress or regress?",
abstract = "Purpose: To assess the impact of the development of less powerful second- and third-generation shockwave lithotripters on surgical stone therapy in light of recent advances in ureteroscopy and laser lithotripsy. As such, we sought to identify current trends in the treatment of stone disease, both at our university medical center and nationally, and to contrast them with the corresponding data from 1990. Patients and Methods: All urolithiasis procedures (ureteroscopy, SWL, open surgery, and percutaneous stone removal) performed in 1998 were compared with all urolithiasis procedures performed 8 years earlier (1990) at a single institution (Washington University, St. Louis). In addition, Medicare data for each year from 1988 through 2000 were collected from the Health Care Financing Administration to assess the national trends for open stone surgery, ureteroscopic stone removal, SWL, and percutaneous nephrolithotomy. Results: At Washington University, the number of percutaneous stone removals remained stable; however, the overall number of ureteroscopies increased by 53{\%}, while the number of SWLs, decreased by 15{\%}. The Medicare data likewise reflect a marked decrease in open stone surgery and a marked increase in ureteroscopic stone surgery with a slight increase in SWL. Utilization of percutaneous nephrolithotomy remained unchanged. Conclusions: We believe this trend toward ureteroscopy is attributable to several factors: improved, smaller rigid and flexible ureteroscopes; the availability of more effective intracorporeal lithotripters (e.g., pneumatic and holmium laser), and the lack of development of lower cost, more effective SWL. This is an unfortunate trend, as we are moving away from the noninvasive treatment that was the hallmark of urolithiasis therapy at the beginning of the last decade toward more invasive endoscopic therapy. Increased research efforts in SWL technology are sorely needed.",
author = "Kurt Kerbl and Jamil Rehman and Jaime Landman and David Lee and Chandru Sundaram and Clayman, {Ralph V.}",
year = "2002",
month = "6",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "16",
pages = "281--288",
journal = "Journal of Endourology",
issn = "0892-7790",
publisher = "Mary Ann Liebert Inc.",
number = "5",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Current management of urolithiasis

T2 - Progress or regress?

AU - Kerbl, Kurt

AU - Rehman, Jamil

AU - Landman, Jaime

AU - Lee, David

AU - Sundaram, Chandru

AU - Clayman, Ralph V.

PY - 2002/6

Y1 - 2002/6

N2 - Purpose: To assess the impact of the development of less powerful second- and third-generation shockwave lithotripters on surgical stone therapy in light of recent advances in ureteroscopy and laser lithotripsy. As such, we sought to identify current trends in the treatment of stone disease, both at our university medical center and nationally, and to contrast them with the corresponding data from 1990. Patients and Methods: All urolithiasis procedures (ureteroscopy, SWL, open surgery, and percutaneous stone removal) performed in 1998 were compared with all urolithiasis procedures performed 8 years earlier (1990) at a single institution (Washington University, St. Louis). In addition, Medicare data for each year from 1988 through 2000 were collected from the Health Care Financing Administration to assess the national trends for open stone surgery, ureteroscopic stone removal, SWL, and percutaneous nephrolithotomy. Results: At Washington University, the number of percutaneous stone removals remained stable; however, the overall number of ureteroscopies increased by 53%, while the number of SWLs, decreased by 15%. The Medicare data likewise reflect a marked decrease in open stone surgery and a marked increase in ureteroscopic stone surgery with a slight increase in SWL. Utilization of percutaneous nephrolithotomy remained unchanged. Conclusions: We believe this trend toward ureteroscopy is attributable to several factors: improved, smaller rigid and flexible ureteroscopes; the availability of more effective intracorporeal lithotripters (e.g., pneumatic and holmium laser), and the lack of development of lower cost, more effective SWL. This is an unfortunate trend, as we are moving away from the noninvasive treatment that was the hallmark of urolithiasis therapy at the beginning of the last decade toward more invasive endoscopic therapy. Increased research efforts in SWL technology are sorely needed.

AB - Purpose: To assess the impact of the development of less powerful second- and third-generation shockwave lithotripters on surgical stone therapy in light of recent advances in ureteroscopy and laser lithotripsy. As such, we sought to identify current trends in the treatment of stone disease, both at our university medical center and nationally, and to contrast them with the corresponding data from 1990. Patients and Methods: All urolithiasis procedures (ureteroscopy, SWL, open surgery, and percutaneous stone removal) performed in 1998 were compared with all urolithiasis procedures performed 8 years earlier (1990) at a single institution (Washington University, St. Louis). In addition, Medicare data for each year from 1988 through 2000 were collected from the Health Care Financing Administration to assess the national trends for open stone surgery, ureteroscopic stone removal, SWL, and percutaneous nephrolithotomy. Results: At Washington University, the number of percutaneous stone removals remained stable; however, the overall number of ureteroscopies increased by 53%, while the number of SWLs, decreased by 15%. The Medicare data likewise reflect a marked decrease in open stone surgery and a marked increase in ureteroscopic stone surgery with a slight increase in SWL. Utilization of percutaneous nephrolithotomy remained unchanged. Conclusions: We believe this trend toward ureteroscopy is attributable to several factors: improved, smaller rigid and flexible ureteroscopes; the availability of more effective intracorporeal lithotripters (e.g., pneumatic and holmium laser), and the lack of development of lower cost, more effective SWL. This is an unfortunate trend, as we are moving away from the noninvasive treatment that was the hallmark of urolithiasis therapy at the beginning of the last decade toward more invasive endoscopic therapy. Increased research efforts in SWL technology are sorely needed.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=0036627215&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=0036627215&partnerID=8YFLogxK

M3 - Article

C2 - 12184077

AN - SCOPUS:0036627215

VL - 16

SP - 281

EP - 288

JO - Journal of Endourology

JF - Journal of Endourology

SN - 0892-7790

IS - 5

ER -