A PHP Error was encountered

Severity: Warning

Message: file_get_contents(https://...@gmail.com&api_key=61f08fa0b96a73de8c900d749fcb997acc09&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests

Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php

Line Number: 197

Backtrace:

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 197
Function: file_get_contents

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 271
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3165
Function: getPubMedXML

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 597
Function: pubMedSearch_Global

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 511
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword

File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 317
Function: require_once

Comparison of cost-effectiveness and postoperative outcomes following integration of a stiff shaft glidewire into percutaneous nephrolithotripsy. | LitMetric

Category Ranking

98%

Total Visits

921

Avg Visit Duration

2 minutes

Citations

20

Article Abstract

Aims: To analyze the cost effectiveness of integrating a stiff shaft glidewire (SSGW) in percutaneous nephrolithotripsy (PCNL) relative to standard technique (ST). This is prudent because healthcare providers are experiencing increased pressure to improve procedure-related cost containment.

Methods: ST for PCNL at our institution involves a hydrophilic glidewire during initial percutaneous access and then two new stiff shaft wires. The SSGW is a hydrophilic wire used for initial access and the remainder of the procedure. We collected operating room (OR) costs for all primary, unilateral PCNL cases over a 5-month period during which ST for PCNL was used at a single institution with a single surgeon and compared with a 6-month period during which a SSGW was used. Mean costs for each period were then compared along with stone-free rates and complications.

Results: We included 17 total cases in the ST group and 22 in the SSGW group. The average operating room supply cost for the ST group was $1937.32 and $1559.39 in the SSGW group. The net difference of $377.93 represents a nearly 20% decrease in cost. This difference was statistically significant ( = 0.031). There was no difference in postoperative stone-free rates (82.4% 86.4%,  = 1.0, respectively) or complications (23.5% 13.6%,  = 0.677, respectively) between ST and SSGW groups.

Conclusion: Transitioning to a SSGW has reduced OR supply cost by reducing the number of supplies required. The change in wire did not affect stone-free rates or complications.

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8385576PMC
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/17562872211022306DOI Listing

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

stiff shaft
12
stone-free rates
12
shaft glidewire
8
percutaneous nephrolithotripsy
8
operating room
8
ssgw group
8
supply cost
8
ssgw
7
cost
5
comparison cost-effectiveness
4

Similar Publications