Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-dh8gc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-16T07:41:01.067Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Impact of Extracorporeal Lithotripsy on Patient Management

Intermediate Results from the Swedish Assessment Study

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 March 2009

Per Carlsson ,
Bengt Jönsson  and
Hans-Göran Tiselius
Per Carlsson
Affiliation:
Linköping University
Bengt Jönsson
Affiliation:
Linköping University
Hans-Göran Tiselius
Affiliation:
Linköping University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Sweden's first, and so far only, ESWL unit for kidney stone treatment became operational on April 1, 1985. This paper presents some intermediate results from an integrated medical, economic, and technical evaluation of the new technology. Seventy-eight percent of 477 patients were defined as successfully treated, totally stone free or fragments less than 4 mm in size, after a follow-up of four weeks. After six months, the share of successfully treated patients had increased to 82%. Successes were closely related to the stone situation; the smaller the stone, the greater success of treatment. Patients' experiences with treatment were also studied and showed that less than 5% of the patients perceived the treatment as unpleasant, frightening, and/or time consuming. Epidemiological data reveal that one unit can replace all open surgical operations on the kidney.

Type
Special Section: The Organization and Use of Technology in the Hospital Part II: Case Studies
Information
International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care , Volume 3 , Issue 3 , July 1987 , pp. 405 - 417
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1987

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1.Carlsson, P.Swedish assessment of extracorporeal shock-wave lithotripsy and alternative technologies for kidney stone treatment. Proceedings from CEC Copenhagen workshop-Variations in use of kidney stone treatment methods and health technology aspects of lithotripsy. March 19–21, 1986, In press.Google Scholar
2.Challah, S., & Mays, N. B.The randomised controlled trial in the evaluation of new technology: A case study. British Medical Journal, 1986, 292, 877–878.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
3.Charig, C. R., Webb, D. R., Payne, S. R., & Wickham, B. E. A.Comparison of treatment of renal calculi by open surgery, percutaneous nephrolithotomy, and extracorporeal Shockwave lithotripsy. British Medical Journal, 1986, 292, 879–882.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
4.Cotter, D. J., Chu, F., Braid, M. J., & Perry, S. National health services and practice patterns survey—Report on extracorporeal Shockwave lithotripsy operating costs, medicare payments, and utilization. Institute for Health Policy Analysis. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Medical Center, 1986.Google Scholar
5.Jönsson, B.Intertemporal and interregional variations in kidney stone treatment in Sweden. Proceedings from CEC Copenhagen workshop—Variations in use of kidney stone treatment methods and health technology aspects of lithotripsy. March 19–21, 1986, In press.Google Scholar
6.Power, E. The Adoption and use of lithotripsy by hospitals in the United States. Washington, DC: Health Program, Office of Technology Assessment. Working draft, 1986.Google Scholar
7.Preminger, G. M., Clayman, R. V., Hardeman, S. W., Franklin, J., Curry, T. R., & Peters, P. C.Percutaneous nephrostodithotomy vs. open surgery for renal calculi. Journal of American Medical Association, 1985, 254, 1054–1058.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
8.Riehle, R. A., Fair, W. R., & Vaughan, E. D.Extracorporeal Shockwave lithotripsy for upper urinary tract calculi: One year&s experience at a single center. Journal of American Medical Association, 1986, 255, 2043–2048.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
9. Svefsk Urologisk förening. Alternativa behandlingsmetoder vid njursten, Svensk Urologisk förenings utredning med anledning av den nya stötvågstekniken. Working draft, 1983.Google Scholar
10.Tiselius, H-G., Pettersson, B., Hellgren, E., & Carlsson, P. Classification of patients subjected to extracorporeal shock-wave lithotripsy. To be published.Google Scholar