Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-ndw9j Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-15T02:44:31.548Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Patients' Quality of Life Following Extracorporeal Shock-Wave Lithotripsy and Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy for Renal Calculi

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 March 2009

Nicholas B. Mays ,
Ann Petruckevitch  and
Claire Snowdon
Nicholas B. Mays
Affiliation:
United Medical and Dental Schools of Guy'; and St. Thomas' Hospitals
Ann Petruckevitch
Affiliation:
United Medical and Dental Schools of Guy'; and St. Thomas' Hospitals
Claire Snowdon
Affiliation:
United Medical and Dental Schools of Guy'; and St. Thomas' Hospitals
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The objective of this study was to test whether the relatively new, noninvasive technique of extracorporeal shock-wave lithotripsy (ESWL) for renal stones resulted in a measurably better outcome from the patients' point of view than percutaneous surgery. The claimed superiority of ESWL was not demonstrated with the data available.

Type
General Essays
Information
International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care , Volume 6 , Issue 4 , October 1990 , pp. 633 - 642
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1990

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

Buxton, M. J., Acheson, R., Caine, N. et al. Costs and benefits of the heart transplant programme at Harefield and Papworth Hospitals. DHSS Research Report No. 12. London: Her Majesty's Stationery Office, 1985.Google Scholar
Hunt, S. M., McEwen, J. & McKenna, S. P.Measuring health status: A new tool for clinicians and epidemiologists. Journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners, 1985, 35, 185–88.Google ScholarPubMed
Hunt, S. M., McEwen, J. & McKenna, S. P.Measuring health status. Beckenham, UK: Croom Helm, 1986.Google Scholar
Hunt, S. M., McEwen, J., McKenna, S. P. et al. Subjective health assessments and the perceived outcome of minor surgery. Journal of Psychosomatic Research, 1984, 28, 105–14.Google Scholar
Jenkinson, C., Fitzpatrick, R. & Argyle, M.The Nottingham Health Profile: An analysis of its sensitivity in differentiating illness groups. Social Science and Medicine, 1988, 27, 1411–14.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kind, P. & Carr-Hill, R.The Nottingham Health Profile: A useful tool for epidemiologists? Social Science and Medicine, 1987, 25, 905–10.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lingeman, J. E., Coury, T. A. & Newman, D. M. et al. Comparison of results and morbidity of percutaneous nephrostolithotomy and extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy. Journal of Urology, 1987, 138, 485–90.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
McDowell, I. & Newell, C.Measuring health: A guide to rating scales and questionnaires. New York: Oxford University Press, 1987.Google Scholar
McKenna, S. P., Hunt, S. M. & McEwen, J.Weighting the seriousness of perceived health problems using Thurstone's method of paired comparisons. International Journal of Epidemiology, 1981, 10, 93–97.Google Scholar
Mays, N.Relative costs and cost-effectiveness of extracorporeal shock-wave lithotripsy versus percutaneous nephrolithotomy in the treatment of renal and ureteric stones. Report to the Department of Health and Social Security. London: UMDS, Department of Community Medicine, 07 1988.Google Scholar
Mays, N., Challah, S., Patel, S. et al. Clinical comparison of extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy and percutaneous nephrolithotomy in treating renal calculi. British Medical Journal, 1988, 297, 253–58.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed