Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 1995 Jan;9(1):37-41.
doi: 10.1007/BF00187882.

Symptomatic gallbladder stones. Cost-effectiveness of treatment with extracorporeal shock-wave lithotripsy, conventional and laparoscopic cholecystectomy

Affiliations

Symptomatic gallbladder stones. Cost-effectiveness of treatment with extracorporeal shock-wave lithotripsy, conventional and laparoscopic cholecystectomy

P M Go et al. Surg Endosc. 1995 Jan.

Abstract

In order to strike the most favorable balance between health benefits and costs, three treatment modalities for symptomatic cholelithiasis were compared in a cost-effectiveness study: extracorporeal shock-wave lithotripsy (ESWL), conventional cholecystectomy (CC), and laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC). Data were analyzed from 55 patients who were treated by ESWL, 45 patients who had CC, and 47 patients who had LC. The study was performed by analysis of patients charts and a written questionnaire. After ESWL 35% of the patients were free of stones, 23% had fragments < or = 5 mm, and 42% had fragments > 5 mm at 1-year follow-up. Persistent complaints were reported by 59% after ESWL, 11% after CC, and 14% after LC (P < 0.001). New complaints arose in 12% after ESWL, 11% after CC, and in 5% after LC (P = NS). Patient appreciation score was highest for LC and lowest for ESWL. Mean hospital stay was 2.4 days for ESWL, 10 days for CC, and 3.5 days for LC. Overall costs of treatment were: $5,066 for ESWL; $5,893 for CC; and $3,117 for LC. This study reveals that laparoscopic cholecystectomy is the most effective treatment of the large majority of patients with symptomatic cholelithiasis. ESWL should only be considered in the case of a solitary, relatively small, completely radiolucent stone.

PubMed Disclaimer

References

    1. N Engl J Med. 1988 Feb 18;318(7):393-7 - PubMed
    1. Am J Surg. 1989 Sep;158(3):174-8 - PubMed
    1. Soc Sci Med. 1986;22(4):393-408 - PubMed
    1. Br J Surg. 1991 Feb;78(2):160-2 - PubMed
    1. Gastroenterology. 1992 Mar;102(3):988-93 - PubMed

Publication types

LinkOut - more resources