{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.02811550151975684, 'fraction_numerical': 0.017477203647416412, 'mean_word_length': 5.183098591549296, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Cost effectiveness of electrohydraulic lithotripsy v Candela pulsed-dye laser in management of the distal ureteral stone.

To compare the efficacy, safety, and cost of the Candela laser lithotripter with those of the electrohydraulic (EHL) lithotripter in the management of distal ureteral stones, 24 patients with obstructing stones were randomized to laser lithotripsy or EHL. Ureteroscopy was performed with a 6.9F ACMI Miniscope under general anesthesia. Twelve patients were treated with laser lithotripsy using the Candela Air-Cooled MDL 2000 LaserTripter System with a 200-micron pulsed-dye laser fiber. Twelve patients were treated with the Herzog Electrohydraulic LithoTripter using the 1.9F fiber. The following issues were studied: stone-free rates, complications (intraoperative, postoperative, and late), and costs of the procedure. No difference was found in the stone-free or complication rates. One patient was found to have hydronephrosis at 6 months secondary to an unrelated proximal ureteral stone. There was no difference in the efficacy of laser lithotripsy and EHL in the management of distal ureteral stones, but EHL was found to be significantly more cost effective: the cost for EHL was +336 per case, whereas, the cost for lasertripsy was +4220 per case, a greater than 10-fold difference.