Ambulatory PCNL may be cost-effective compared to Standard PCNL.

Background COVID-19 changed the practice of medicine in America. During the March 2020 lockdown, elective cases were cancelled to conserve hospital beds/resources resulting in financial losses for health systems and delayed surgical care. Ambulatory percutaneous nephrolithotomy (aPCNL) has been shown to be safe and could be a strategy to: ensure patients receive care that has been delayed, conserve hospital resources, and maximize cost-effectiveness. We aimed to compare the safety and cost-effectiveness of patients undergoing ambulatory percutaneous nephrolithotomy (aPCNL) against standard PCNL (sPCNL). Materials and Methods 98 patients underwent PCNL at Indiana University Methodist hospital, a tertiary referral center, by three expert surgeons from January 2020 to September 2020. The primary outcome of the study was to compare the 30-day rates of ED-visits, readmissions, and complications between sPCNL and aPCNL. Secondary outcomes included: cost analysis and stone free rates (SFRs). Prospensity-score matching was performed to ensure the groups were balanced. Statistical analyses were performed using SAS 9.4 using independent t-tests for continuous variables and chi-square analyses for categorical variables. Results 98 patients underwent PCNL during the study period (sPCNL=75 and aPCNL=23). After propensity-score matching, 42 patients were available for comparison (sPCNL=19 and aPCNL=23). We found no difference in 30-day ED-visits, readmissions, or complications between the two groups. aPCNL resulted in cost savings of $5327±442 per case. Stone free rates were higher for aPCNL compared to sPCNL. Conclusions aPCNL appears safe to perform and does not have a higher rate of ED-visits or readmissions compare to sPCNL. aPCNL may also be cost-effective compared to sPCNL.