Economic Burden of Imaging and Interventions in Endourology: A Worldwide Cost Analysis from European Association of Urology Young Academic Urology Endourology and Urolithiasis Working Party
1
Issued Date
2025-04-01
Resource Type
ISSN
08927790
eISSN
1557900X
Scopus ID
2-s2.0-86000608864
Pubmed ID
40019809
Journal Title
Journal of Endourology
Volume
39
Issue
4
Start Page
389
End Page
398
Rights Holder(s)
SCOPUS
Bibliographic Citation
Journal of Endourology Vol.39 No.4 (2025) , 389-398
Suggested Citation
Pietropaolo A., Keller E.X., Sener T.E., Hamed B.M.Z., Tsaturyan A., Ventimiglia E., Juliebø-Jones P., Beisland C., Mikoniatis I., Tzelves L., De Coninck V., Panthier F., Chaloupka M., Bres-Niewada E., del Rio A.S., Dragos L., Gadzhiev N., Shrestha A., Tursunkulov A., Ghani K.R., Ketsuwan C., Danilovic A., Pauchard F., Kamkoum H., Cabrera J., Corrales M., Barghouthy Y., Kwok J.L., Tokas T., Solano C., Contreras P.N., Hamri S.B., Bhojani N., Bouma-Houwert A.C., Tailly T., Durutovic O., Somani B.K. Economic Burden of Imaging and Interventions in Endourology: A Worldwide Cost Analysis from European Association of Urology Young Academic Urology Endourology and Urolithiasis Working Party. Journal of Endourology Vol.39 No.4 (2025) , 389-398. 398. doi:10.1089/end.2024.0673 Retrieved from: https://repository.li.mahidol.ac.th/handle/123456789/109969
Title
Economic Burden of Imaging and Interventions in Endourology: A Worldwide Cost Analysis from European Association of Urology Young Academic Urology Endourology and Urolithiasis Working Party
Author(s)
Pietropaolo A.
Keller E.X.
Sener T.E.
Hamed B.M.Z.
Tsaturyan A.
Ventimiglia E.
Juliebø-Jones P.
Beisland C.
Mikoniatis I.
Tzelves L.
De Coninck V.
Panthier F.
Chaloupka M.
Bres-Niewada E.
del Rio A.S.
Dragos L.
Gadzhiev N.
Shrestha A.
Tursunkulov A.
Ghani K.R.
Ketsuwan C.
Danilovic A.
Pauchard F.
Kamkoum H.
Cabrera J.
Corrales M.
Barghouthy Y.
Kwok J.L.
Tokas T.
Solano C.
Contreras P.N.
Hamri S.B.
Bhojani N.
Bouma-Houwert A.C.
Tailly T.
Durutovic O.
Somani B.K.
Keller E.X.
Sener T.E.
Hamed B.M.Z.
Tsaturyan A.
Ventimiglia E.
Juliebø-Jones P.
Beisland C.
Mikoniatis I.
Tzelves L.
De Coninck V.
Panthier F.
Chaloupka M.
Bres-Niewada E.
del Rio A.S.
Dragos L.
Gadzhiev N.
Shrestha A.
Tursunkulov A.
Ghani K.R.
Ketsuwan C.
Danilovic A.
Pauchard F.
Kamkoum H.
Cabrera J.
Corrales M.
Barghouthy Y.
Kwok J.L.
Tokas T.
Solano C.
Contreras P.N.
Hamri S.B.
Bhojani N.
Bouma-Houwert A.C.
Tailly T.
Durutovic O.
Somani B.K.
Author's Affiliation
Saint-Petersburg State University Hospital
Fr. Muller Medical College Hospital
Hamad Medical Corporation
Universitair Ziekenhuis Gent
Hôpital Européen Georges-Pompidou
Hospital Clínic de Barcelona
Haukeland Universitetssjukehus
Universitetet i Bergen
National and Kapodistrian University of Athens
Algemeen Ziekenhuis Klina
University of Michigan, Ann Arbor
IRCCS Ospedale San Raffaele
AP-HP Assistance Publique - Hopitaux de Paris
Hospital Naval Almirante Nef
UniversitatsSpital Zurich
Cambridge University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust
Uczelnia Łazarskiego
Faculty of Medicine Ramathibodi Hospital, Mahidol University
Aristotle University of Thessaloniki
Heraklion University Hospital
University of Montreal
Universidade de São Paulo
Hospital Aleman
Marmara Üniversitesi Tip Fakültesi
Universiteit van Amsterdam
Tan Tock Seng Hospital
Sorbonne Université
University Hospital Southampton NHS Foundation Trust
Klinikum der Universität München
National Academy of Medical Sciences
Urology Department at Specialized Medical Center SMC2 Riyadh Saudi Arabia
Clinic of Urology UCCS
Uroclin SAS Medellin
AkfaMedline Hospital
Javier Prado Clinic
Erebouni Medical Center
Fr. Muller Medical College Hospital
Hamad Medical Corporation
Universitair Ziekenhuis Gent
Hôpital Européen Georges-Pompidou
Hospital Clínic de Barcelona
Haukeland Universitetssjukehus
Universitetet i Bergen
National and Kapodistrian University of Athens
Algemeen Ziekenhuis Klina
University of Michigan, Ann Arbor
IRCCS Ospedale San Raffaele
AP-HP Assistance Publique - Hopitaux de Paris
Hospital Naval Almirante Nef
UniversitatsSpital Zurich
Cambridge University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust
Uczelnia Łazarskiego
Faculty of Medicine Ramathibodi Hospital, Mahidol University
Aristotle University of Thessaloniki
Heraklion University Hospital
University of Montreal
Universidade de São Paulo
Hospital Aleman
Marmara Üniversitesi Tip Fakültesi
Universiteit van Amsterdam
Tan Tock Seng Hospital
Sorbonne Université
University Hospital Southampton NHS Foundation Trust
Klinikum der Universität München
National Academy of Medical Sciences
Urology Department at Specialized Medical Center SMC2 Riyadh Saudi Arabia
Clinic of Urology UCCS
Uroclin SAS Medellin
AkfaMedline Hospital
Javier Prado Clinic
Erebouni Medical Center
Corresponding Author(s)
Other Contributor(s)
Abstract
Background and Objective: The cost of imaging and interventions in the surgical field varies between countries and sometimes within different regions of the same country. Procedural cost takes into account equipment, consumables, operating room, surgical, anesthetic and nursing teams, radiology, medications, and hospital stay. Health care systems therefore face an incredible burden related to investigations and surgical procedures. The aim of this study was to collect costs of imaging and interventions for kidney calculi across different hospitals and health care systems in the world. Methods: An online shared Google spreadsheet was created by the European Association of Urology Young Academic Urology urolithiasis group. The survey consisted of the cost of four radiological imaging (ultrasound of the urinary tract [USS], plain X-ray radiography of the abdomen including kidneys, ureter, and bladder [XRKUB], noncontrast-enhanced computerized tomography [CTKUB], and contrast-enhanced CT with urographic phase [CTU]) and seven interventions (endoscopic laser treatment of renal stones, ureteroscopic treatment or extraction of ureteral stones, percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL), insertion of ureteral stent, diagnostic ureteroscopy, and cystolitholapaxy). A chosen representative from each country collected and collated the data, and this was converted to Euros (€). Key Findings and Limitations: Data were collected from 32 countries, which include Turkey, Armenia, Nepal, Uzbekistan, Brazil, Chile, Qatar, Peru, Israel, Singapore, Thailand, Colombia, Argentina, Saudi Arabia, Asia, North America, 15 countries from the European continent, and the United States. The mean cost of USS, XRKUB, CTKUB, and CTU was 51.3 € (range: 2-160 €), 27.1 € (range: 2.5-187 €), 105.8 € (range: 19-405 €), and 171.5 € (range: 19-674 €), respectively. Similarly, the cost of endoscopic laser treatment of renal stones, ureteroscopic treatment/extraction of ureteral stones, PCNL, insertion of ureteral stent, diagnostic ureteroscopy, and cystolitholapaxy was 1942.6 € (range: 100-7887 €), 1626.8 € (range: 80-9787 €), 2884.6 € (range: 110-12642 €), 631 € (range: 110-2787 €), 861.6 € (range: 3-2667 €), and 876 € (range: 19-3457 €), respectively. Wide differences in cost between countries were found within the study. Conclusions and Clinical Implications: This study highlights the significant economic impact of kidney stone management on health care systems worldwide. There seem to be significant disparities between costs, and this study shows the social and economic inequalities in health care access, which can differ significantly between private and public health care. These results can aid policymakers to address these disparities and perhaps to learn from other health care providers.