OBJECTIVE: To compare two percutaneous techniques used in the treatment of malignant obstructive uropathy—antegrade double-J stent placement (JJ stenting) and percutaneous nephrostomy—in terms of their cost-effectiveness, from the perspective of the Brazilian public health care system. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In this cost-effectiveness analysis, we employed decision-analytic modeling. We calculated material costs from 2017 factory prices listed by the Brazilian Pharmaceutical Market Regulatory Board (for medications) and published in the journal Revista Simpro (for medical devices). Procedure-related costs were evaluated, as were the rates of technical and clinical success. Those measures were then used as inputs for a cost-effectiveness analysis comparing the two procedures. RESULTS: The sample comprised 41 patients, of whom 16 underwent antegrade JJ stenting (26 procedures) and 10 underwent percutaneous nephrostomy (15 procedures). Patient records, radiology reports, and expense reports of the interventional radiology department of the public hospital where the study was conducted were analyzed retrospectively. There were no significant complications: one patient had low back pain, and one had a transient retroperitoneal hematoma. The mean procedure time was 24 min, and clinical success (improvement in serum creatinine and resolution of hydronephrosis) was achieved in 97.5% of the cases. The average cost of JJ stenting was significantly lower than was that of percutaneous nephrostomy (US$164.10 vs. US$552.20). CONCLUSION: In the absence of any clinical contraindications, antegrade JJ stenting is a suitable alternative to both percutaneous nephrostomy and retrograde stenting in patients with dilated renal collecting systems secondary to malignant ureteral obstruction, providing significant cost savings and high success rates.

Keywords: Cost-benefit analysis; Radiology, interventional; Nephrostomy, percutaneous; Stents.