Skip to main content
Evaluation of Patient Treatment Preferences for 15-20mm Kidney Stones: A Conjoint Analysis. Journal of endourology Spradling, K., Bhambhvani, H. P., Chang, T. C., Pao, A. C., Liao, J. C., Leppert, J. T., Welk, B., Harris, C. R., Conti, S. L., Elliott, C. S. 2020

Abstract

INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVE: Ureteroscopy (URS) and percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL) are standard surgical treatments for intermediate-size (15-20mm) kidney stones but differ in their postoperative recovery, stone-free rates, and complication risks. We aimed to evaluate what affects patient treatment preferences.METHODS: Patients with urinary stone disease completed a choice-based conjoint analysis exercise assessing four treatment attributes associated with URS and PCNL. A sensitivity analysis using a market simulator was performed and the relative importance of each attribute was calculated. Differences in treatment preferences by demographic subgroup were assessed.RESULTS: A total of 58 patients completed the conjoint analysis exercise. Stone-free rate was the most important treatment attribute while length of hospital stay and cosmesis were less important. Overall, sensitivity analysis based on market simulation scenarios predicted almost equal preference for URS (52.4%) compared to PCNL (47.6%) for treatment of an intermediate-size stone. Older patients (>65 yo) expressed stronger preferences for lower infection rates and shorter hospital stays, and were more likely to prefer URS (67.2%, 95% CI: 52 - 82.5%) compared to younger patients (20-34 yo) (20.3%, 95% CI: 0 - 41.5%) who preferred higher procedure success rates and fewer repeat procedures.CONCLUSION: Conjoint analysis predicts nearly equal patient preference for URS or PCNL for the treatment of intermediate-size kidney stones. Older patients prefer the lower UTI risk and shorter hospital stay associated with URS, while younger patients prefer higher stone-free rates associated with PCNL. These results can help guide urologists in counseling patients and improve the shared decision-making process.

View details for DOI 10.1089/end.2020.0370

View details for PubMedID 32867549