↓ Skip to main content

Treatment of forgotten ureteral stents: how much does it really cost? A cost-effectiveness study in 27 patients

Overview of attention for article published in Urolithiasis, August 2011
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
57 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
50 Mendeley
Title
Treatment of forgotten ureteral stents: how much does it really cost? A cost-effectiveness study in 27 patients
Published in
Urolithiasis, August 2011
DOI 10.1007/s00240-011-0409-3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Ahmet Ali Sancaktutar, Haluk Söylemez, Yasar Bozkurt, Necmettin Penbegül, Murat Atar

Abstract

Aim of study was to present costs of forgotten ureteral stents extraction so as to distract attentions of the urologists on this issue. Medical files of 27 accessible patients who referred to our clinics between 2001 and 2010 because of forgotten ureteral stent were retrospectively analyzed. The indwelling time of double-j stents (DJS) was calculated from the time of its insertion. Costs related to radiological investigations, all invasive, and noninvasive interventions, duration of hospital stay, and medical treatments used were calculated. These estimations were based on 2010 prices determined by Turkey Ministry of Health. Mean age of the patients was 31.2 (8-86 years) years. Mean indwelling time of ureteral DJSs was 36.7 months (14-84 months). Seventy-one [extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL), n = 26; invasive/noninvasive interventions, n = 32] procedures were applied for 27 patients. In six patients without incrustation, after a single session of ESWL DJSs could be removed cystoscopically. A various combination of a multimodal therapy was used for other 21 patients. Total financial burden of 27 patients was US $ 34,300. Cost of treatment was estimated to be 6.9-fold (1.8- to 21-fold) higher than an average timely stent extraction. Financial burden of the treatments increased in parallel with the duration of the stent retention (p = 0.001). Management of forgotten DJS is time consuming, difficult, complicated, risky, and costly. Therefore; financial burden, increased labour loss, and impaired quality of life brought by the application of these modalities must not be forgotten.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 50 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 50 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 7 14%
Other 6 12%
Student > Master 6 12%
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 10%
Student > Bachelor 5 10%
Other 8 16%
Unknown 13 26%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 21 42%
Business, Management and Accounting 2 4%
Chemistry 2 4%
Social Sciences 2 4%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 4%
Other 7 14%
Unknown 14 28%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 29 July 2012.
All research outputs
#22,760,732
of 25,374,917 outputs
Outputs from Urolithiasis
#673
of 716 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#121,409
of 131,753 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Urolithiasis
#8
of 10 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,917 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 716 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.3. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 131,753 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 10 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 2 of them.