Related Experiment Video
Updated: Aug 3, 2026
Minimally Invasive Thumb-sized Pterional Craniotomy for Surgical Clip Ligation of Unruptured Anterior Circulation Aneurysms
Published on: August 11, 2015
Micro cost-effectiveness analysis of standard vs. mini percutaneous nephrolithotomy A single Canadian institution's
Ahmed Shoeib1, Ailsa Gan1, James Watterson1
1Division of Urology, Department of Surgery, The Ottawa Hospital, Ottawa, ON, Canada.
Introduction:
Mini-percutaneous nephrolithotomy (mPCNL ) has been described as an alternative to standard nephrolithotomy (sPCNL ) for select stones. Studies suggest that mPCNL has comparable stone-free rates, with potential for decreased complications and shorter hospital stay. Costs associated with both procedures present a challenge to Canadian institutions due to capital acquisitions of equipment and ongoing disposables. The objective of this study was to compare the cost-effectiveness of both procedures at our institution.
Methods:
A decision tree analytic model was developed to compare costs and outcomes of both procedures. Primary outcomes included assessment of total capital, operative, and hospitalization costs. Cost and outcome of peri- and postoperative parameters were obtained using a retrospective analysis of 20 mPCNL and 84 sPCNL procedures on 1-2.5 cm stones between January 2020 and June 2022, and supplemented with internal hospital expenditure records and literature outcome data. Descriptive statistics and regression models were performed.
Results:
The estimated total cost-per-patient was $7427.05 and $5036.29 for sPCNL and mPCNL, respectively, resulting in cost-savings of $2390.76 in favor of mPCNL, with a comparable stone-free rate. The savings were due to lower costs associated with complications and hospital stay. mPCNL had higher capital costs ($95 116.00) compared to sPCNL ($78 517.00), but per-procedure operative costs were lower for mPCNL ($2504.48) compared to sPCNL ($3335.72). Cost-per-case regression of total costs intersected at 5.51 cases when accounting for operative and hospitalization costs, and at 20 cases when only considering operative costs.
Conclusions:
Despite higher upfront costs, mCPNL may represent a valid, cost-effective alternative to sPCNL for select stones due to clinical and economic benefits in Canadian institutions.
