Purchase one-time access:Academic & Personal: 24 hour online accessCorporate R&D Professionals: 24 hour online access
One-time access price info
- For academic or personal research use, select 'Academic and Personal'
- For corporate R&D use, select 'Corporate R&D Professionals'
- Time trends in reported prevalence of kidney stones in the United States: 1976-1994.Kidney Int. 2003; 63: 1817-1823https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1523-1755.2003.00917.x
- Prevalence of kidney stones in the United States.Eur Urol. 2012; 62: 160-165https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2012.03.052
- Urologic diseases in America project: urolithiasis.J Urol. 2005; 173: 848-857https://doi.org/10.1097/01.ju.0000152082.14384.d7
- Changing gender prevalence of stone disease.J Urol. 2007; 177: 979-982https://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2006.10.069
- Assessing cost-effectiveness of new technologies in stone management.Urol Clin North Am. 2019; 46: 303-313https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ucl.2018.12.011
- Economic considerations in the management of nephrolithiasis.Curr Urol Rep. 2020; 21: 18https://doi.org/10.1007/s11934-020-00971-6
- Surgical management of stones: American Urological Association/Endourological Society Guideline, PART I.J Urol. 2016; 196: 1153-1160https://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2016.05.090
- Surgical management of stones: American Urological Association/Endourological Society Guideline, PART II.J Urol. 2016; 196: 1161-1169https://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2016.05.091
- EAU Guidelines on Urolithiasis.2017 (Available at)Accessed October 27, 2017)
- Fiche Pertinence des soins - Traitements interventionnels de première intention des calculs urinaires.Mai. 2017;
- Comparative medico-economic study of reusable vs. single-use flexible ureteroscopes.Int Urol Nephrol. 2019; 51: 1735-1741https://doi.org/10.1007/s11255-019-02230-1
- A comprehensive literature-based equation to compare cost-effectiveness of a flexible ureteroscopy program with single-use versus reusable devices.Int Braz J Urol. 2019; 45: 658-670https://doi.org/10.1590/s1677-5538.ibju.2018.0880
- Single-use disposable digital flexible ureteroscopes: an ex vivo assessment and cost analysis.BJU Int. 2018; 121: 55-61https://doi.org/10.1111/bju.14235
- The Economic implications of a reusable flexible digital ureteroscope: a cost-benefit analysis.J Urol. 2017; 197: 730-735https://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2016.09.085
- Reusable flexible ureterorenoscopes are more cost-effective than single-use scopes: results of a systematic review from PETRA Uro-group.Transl Androl Urol. 2019; 8: S418
- Micro-costing analysis demonstrates comparable costs for lithovue compared to reusable flexible fiberoptic ureteroscopes.J Endourol. 2018; 32: 267-273https://doi.org/10.1089/end.2017.0523
- Retrospective cost analysis of a single-center reusable flexible ureterorenoscopy program: a comparative cost simulation of disposable fURS as an alternative.J Endourol. 2017; 31: 1226-1230https://doi.org/10.1089/end.2017.0427
- Clinical outcomes and costs of reusable and single-use flexible ureterorenoscopes: a prospective cohort study.Urolithiasis. 2018; 46: 587-593https://doi.org/10.1007/s00240-018-1042-1
- Trends of « urolithiasis: interventions, simulation, and laser technology » over the last 16 years (2000-2015) as published in the literature (PubMed): a systematic review from European section of Uro-technology (ESUT).World J Urol. 2017; 35: 1651-1658https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-017-2055-z
- Retrograde intrarenal surgery: an expanding role in treatment of urolithiasis.Asian J Urol. 2018; 5: 264-273https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajur.2018.06.005
- Worldwide trends of urinary stone disease treatment over the last two decades: a systematic review.J Endourol. 2017; 31: 547-556https://doi.org/10.1089/end.2016.0895
- Trends in upper tract stone disease in England: evidence from the hospital episodes statistics database.Urol Int. 2017; 98: 391-396https://doi.org/10.1159/000449510
- Evaluation of guidelines for surgical management of urolithiasis.J Urol. 2018; 199: 1267-1271https://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2017.11.111
Denstedt J, de la Rosette J: Stone Disease. Available at :https://www.siu-urology.org/society/siu-icud. Accessed October 27, 2017.
- Guide Méthodologique - Choix Méthodologiques Pour l'analyse de l'impact Budgétaire à la HAS.2016
- Budget impact analysis-principles of good practice: report of the ISPOR 2012 Budget Impact Analysis Good Practice II Task Force.Value Health. 2014; 17: 5-14https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jval.2013.08.2291
- Re-treatment after ureteroscopy and shock wave lithotripsy: a population based comparative effectiveness study.J Urol. 2020; 203: 1156-1162https://doi.org/10.1097/JU.0000000000000712
- Factors associated with regional adoption of ureteroscopy in california from 2005 to 2016.J Endourol. 2019; 33: 9-15https://doi.org/10.1089/end.2018.0776
Compliance with Ethical Standards: This article does not contain any studies with human participants or animals performed by any of the authors. The data used are either freely accessible on the Agency for Information on Hospital Care (AIHC) website (https://www.scansante.fr) or from the University Hospital of Tours hospital database (PMSI data).
This observational study on aggregated data does not require registration.
All data generated or analyzed during this study are included in this published article and in the supplementary material (except for confidential data).
Funding: No funding was received for conducting this study.
Author contributions: BP initiated the research topic. BP and BFA brought their experience to value the key model parameters. SW and TLF performed the microcosting. ER provided PMSI data. SDR, FM and SBH performed the data collection, designed the model, performed the statistical analysis and wrote the initial manuscript in collaboration with BP. All authors have read and approved the final manuscript. SBH is the general guarantor.
Disclosure:The authors declare no relationship of interest likely to have affected the study methodology or results.
Franck Bruyère declared himself as proctor for the Boston Scientific Society.