You have accessJournal of UrologyStone Disease: New Technology/SWL, Ureteroscopic or Percutaneous Stone Removal III1 Apr 20121830 PROPENSITY SCORE ANALYSIS OF COMPARATIVE EFFECTIVENESS: PERCUTANEOUS NEPHROLITHOTOMY VERSUS STAGED URETEROSCOPY FOR KIDNEY STONES BETWEEN 2 AND 4 CENTIMETERS Emily Scott, Dan Winger, Samih Al-Hayek, Joel Bigley, Khaled Shahrour, Stephen Jackman, and Timothy Averch Emily ScottEmily Scott Pittsburgh, PA More articles by this author , Dan WingerDan Winger Pittsburgh, PA More articles by this author , Samih Al-HayekSamih Al-Hayek Pittsburgh, PA More articles by this author , Joel BigleyJoel Bigley Pittsburgh, PA More articles by this author , Khaled ShahrourKhaled Shahrour Pittsburgh, PA More articles by this author , Stephen JackmanStephen Jackman Pittsburgh, PA More articles by this author , and Timothy AverchTimothy Averch Pittsburgh, PA More articles by this author View All Author Informationhttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2012.02.1918AboutPDF ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload CitationsTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints ShareFacebookTwitterLinked InEmail INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES Historically, the standard for the treatment of large stone burdens is percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL). However, staged ureteroscopy (SURS) is being used more frequently to treat these stones. This study evaluates the comparative effectiveness of these procedures in treating stones between 2 and 4 centimeters in diameter using propensity score analysis. METHODS With IRB approval, all PCNL patients' charts from 2000 to 2010 with stones between 2 and 4 centimeters were reviewed. Patients with staghorn stones were also excluded, as their probability of receiving a PCNL procedure was much greater than an SURS procedure. SURS patients that met the same criteria were selected for between 2005 and 2010. A comparison of the two procedures was performed analyzing complications, hospital length of stay (HLOS), patients requiring a second look, and overall stone free success rate. Propensity score analysis accounted for nonrandom assignment of the two procedures. The propensity scores took into account a variety of risk factors not balanced in the original dataset (I.e. BMI, diabetes, coagulopathy, various stone characteristics, etc.). Propensity scores were used to either construct matched data sets for paired comparisons or to adjust traditional unmatched regression methods. RESULTS 158 PCNL patients and 41 SURS patients with valid data were used, and propensity score analysis with caliper matching was generated into a matched data set of 29 patients in each group. Based on this matched data set, there was no difference in the complication rate of the two procedures (PCNL 6.90%, SURS 3.45%, exact p-value = 1.00). Also, there was no difference in the success of the two procedures (stone free overall, PCNL 89.7%, SURS 86.2%, exact p-value = 1.00). There was a difference, however, in HLOS (PNCL 2.31, SURS 0.03, p-value < 0.001) and in rate of second look (PCNL 37.9%, SURS 89.7%, p-value < 0.001). Other methods of statistical analysis included traditional regression methods adjusting for propensity scores, which used the entire unmatched dataset, and produced the same above conclusions as the matched analysis. CONCLUSIONS The use of propensity score analysis showed no significant difference between PCNL and SURS in complication and stone free rates for stones of this size. PCNL resulted in a longer HLOS, and SURS had a higher rate of second look. The data suggests that SURS should be considered as an alternative treatment in appropriate patients with this magnitude of stone burden. © 2012 by American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc.FiguresReferencesRelatedDetails Volume 187Issue 4SApril 2012Page: e740 Advertisement Copyright & Permissions© 2012 by American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc.MetricsAuthor Information Emily Scott Pittsburgh, PA More articles by this author Dan Winger Pittsburgh, PA More articles by this author Samih Al-Hayek Pittsburgh, PA More articles by this author Joel Bigley Pittsburgh, PA More articles by this author Khaled Shahrour Pittsburgh, PA More articles by this author Stephen Jackman Pittsburgh, PA More articles by this author Timothy Averch Pittsburgh, PA More articles by this author Expand All Advertisement Advertisement PDF downloadLoading ...
Read full abstract