Related Experiment Video
Updated: Oct 16, 2025

A Two-Step Method for Percutaneous Transhepatic Choledochoscopic Lithotomy
Published on: September 13, 2022
Ambulatory Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy May Be Cost-Effective Compared to Standard Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy
Matthew S Lee1, Mark A Assmus1, Deepak K Agarwal2
1Department of Urology, Feinberg School of Medicine, Northwestern University, Chicago, Illinois, USA.
Insights
Ambulatory percutaneous nephrolithotomy (aPCNL) is a safe alternative to standard PCNL, with no increase in complications or hospital readmissions. This approach offers significant cost savings and improved stone-free rates, making it a viable option for delayed surgical care.
Area of Science:
- Urology
- Health Economics
- Surgical Innovation
Background:
- The COVID-19 pandemic led to cancellations of elective surgeries, causing financial strain on healthcare systems and delaying patient care.
- Ambulatory percutaneous nephrolithotomy (aPCNL) presents a potential solution for managing delayed surgical care, optimizing resource use, and improving cost-effectiveness.
- Comparing the safety and economic impact of aPCNL versus standard PCNL (sPCNL) is crucial for guiding clinical practice.
Purpose of the Study:
- To compare the safety and cost-effectiveness of ambulatory percutaneous nephrolithotomy (aPCNL) against standard percutaneous nephrolithotomy (sPCNL).
- To evaluate 30-day emergency department visits, readmissions, and complication rates between aPCNL and sPCNL.
- To assess cost savings and stone-free rates (SFRs) for both procedures.
Main Methods:
- A retrospective study of 98 patients undergoing PCNL at a tertiary referral center from January to September 2020.
- Propensity score matching was used to balance patient groups for comparison of outcomes.
- Statistical analysis included independent t-tests and chi-square analyses to compare primary outcomes (30-day ED visits, readmissions, complications) and secondary outcomes (cost, SFRs).
Main Results:
- After propensity score matching, 42 patients (19 sPCNL, 23 aPCNL) were analyzed.
- No significant differences were observed in 30-day emergency department visits, readmissions, or complications between aPCNL and sPCNL groups.
- aPCNL demonstrated cost savings of $5327 ± $442 per case and achieved higher stone-free rates compared to sPCNL.
Conclusions:
- Ambulatory percutaneous nephrolithotomy (aPCNL) is a safe procedure with comparable rates of emergency visits and readmissions to standard PCNL (sPCNL).
- aPCNL offers significant cost-effectiveness and potentially better stone clearance compared to sPCNL.
- aPCNL is a viable strategy for providing timely surgical care while optimizing healthcare resources.
Abstract:
Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) changed the practice of medicine in America. During the March 2020 lockdown, elective cases were canceled to conserve hospital beds/resources resulting in financial losses for health systems and delayed surgical care. Ambulatory percutaneous nephrolithotomy (aPCNL) has been shown to be safe and could be a strategy to ensure patients receive care that has been delayed, conserve hospital resources, and maximize cost-effectiveness. We aimed to compare the safety and cost-effectiveness of patients undergoing aPCNL against standard PCNL (sPCNL). Ninty-eight patients underwent PCNL at Indiana University Methodist Hospital, a tertiary referral center, by three expert surgeons from January 2020 to September 2020. The primary outcome of the study was to compare the 30-day rates of emergency department (ED) visits, readmissions, and complications between sPCNL and aPCNL. Secondary outcomes included cost analysis and stone-free rates (SFRs). Propensity score matching was performed to ensure the groups were balanced. Statistical analyses were performed using SAS 9.4 using independent t-tests for continuous variables and chi-square analyses for categorical variables. Ninety-eight patients underwent PCNL during the study period (sPCNL = 75 and aPCNL = 23). After propensity score matching, 42 patients were available for comparison (sPCNL = 19 and aPCNL = 23). We found no difference in 30-day ED visits, readmissions, or complications between the two groups. aPCNL resulted in cost savings of $5327 ± 442 per case. SFRs were higher for aPCNL compared with sPCNL. aPCNL appears safe to perform and does not have a higher rate of ED visits or readmissions compared with sPCNL. aPCNL may also be cost-effective compared with sPCNL.
More Related Videos
06:39Technical Modification of the Terminal Ureter During Total Transperitoneal Laparoscopic Nephroureterectomy for Upper Urinary Tract Urothelial Carcinoma
Published on: November 22, 2019
03:19Author Spotlight: Developing a Bedside Protocol for Kidney and Genitourinary Ultrasonography
Published on: June 21, 2024
Related Concept Videos
Urinary Tract Calculi VI: Surgical Management
Imaging Studies V: Intravenous Urography and Retrograde Pyelography
Acute Pyelonephritis II: Diagnostic Studies and Management
Urinary Tract Calculi III: Medical Management
Urinary Tract Calculi V: Nursing Management
Acute Kidney Injury V: Interprofessional Care