Literature DB >> 18366318

Current practice patterns in the management of upper urinary tract calculi in the north central United States.

Gaurav Bandi1, Sara L Best, Stephen Y Nakada.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: To determine the current practice patterns in the management of upper urinary tract calculi in a large group of urologists in the north central United States.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: An email survey was sent to 790 practicing members of the North Central Section of the American Urological Association. The survey consisted of questions pertaining to practice and training background, and case scenarios with treatment options for upper urinary tract calculi of different sizes at various locations. The responses were then statistically analyzed to determine practice trends.
RESULTS: Seven urologists did not fill out the survey, as they did not manage patients with stone disease. The overall response rate was 23% (167/783). Although more than 75% of urologists were trained to perform extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy (SWL), ureteroscopy (URS), and percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL) during their residency, only 61% and 17% were trained to perform open stone surgery (OSS) and medical expulsive therapy (MET), respectively. Twelve percent of respondents were fellowship trained in endourology. Observation was most commonly recommended for asymptomatic renal calculi <5 mm in size (92%). Although SWL continues to be the most commonly utilized therapy for renal (43%-92%) and proximal ureteral calculi <20 mm in size (29%-51%), and PCNL for renal calculi >20 mm in size (72%-92%), many urologists (48%) favored PCNL for lower pole calculi 10 to 20 mm in size. Use of URS was mostly favored for distal (44%-90%) and proximal ureteral calculi (23%-46%), while MET was recommended for small ureteral calculi <5 mm in size (25%-32%). Fellowship-trained endourologists, academic urologists, and urologists in practice for less than 5 years were more likely to utilize URS, PCNL, and MET, and less likely to utilize SWL for urinary calculi.
CONCLUSION: The results of this survey suggest that practice patterns for treatment of stone disease match the treatment approach recommended in the published literature. This information can be further utilized for assessment of guidelines for the treatment of stone disease.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2008        PMID: 18366318     DOI: 10.1089/end.2007.0186

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Endourol        ISSN: 0892-7790            Impact factor:   2.942


  13 in total

1.  Renal colic and urolithiasis practice patterns in Canada: a survey of Canadian Urological Association members.

Authors:  Raj Satkunasivam; Melise Keays; Kenneth T Pace
Journal:  Can Urol Assoc J       Date:  2011-10       Impact factor: 1.862

2.  Comparison of super-mini versus mini percutaneous nephrolithotomy for the treatment of upper urinary tract stones in children: a single centre experience.

Authors:  Abulizi Simayi; Peng Lei; Talaiti Tayier; Aihemaiti Aimaier; Zhang Xiao'an; Yalikun Alimu
Journal:  Pediatr Surg Int       Date:  2021-05-21       Impact factor: 1.827

3.  The Zeiss-loop stone extraction: minimal invasive and effective or obsolete?

Authors:  Christof Börgermann; F vom Dorp; H Sperling; H Rübben; T Schneider
Journal:  World J Urol       Date:  2009-06-09       Impact factor: 4.226

4.  Factors influencing urologist treatment preference in surgical management of stone disease.

Authors:  M Adam Childs; Laureano J Rangel; James E Lingeman; Amy E Krambeck
Journal:  Urology       Date:  2012-01-13       Impact factor: 2.649

5.  Comparison of super-mini PCNL (SMP) versus Miniperc for stones larger than 2 cm: a propensity score-matching study.

Authors:  Yang Liu; Jad AlSmadi; Wei Zhu; Yongda Liu; Wenqi Wu; Junhong Fan; Yu Lan; Wayne Lam; Wen Zhong; Guohua Zeng
Journal:  World J Urol       Date:  2018-01-31       Impact factor: 4.226

6.  Fragmentation of urinary calculi in vitro by burst wave lithotripsy.

Authors:  Adam D Maxwell; Bryan W Cunitz; Wayne Kreider; Oleg A Sapozhnikov; Ryan S Hsi; Jonathan D Harper; Michael R Bailey; Mathew D Sorensen
Journal:  J Urol       Date:  2014-08-09       Impact factor: 7.450

Review 7.  When (and how) to surgically treat asymptomatic renal stones.

Authors:  Zachariah G Goldsmith; Michael E Lipkin
Journal:  Nat Rev Urol       Date:  2012-03-27       Impact factor: 14.432

8.  A prospective, multi-institutional study of flexible ureteroscopy for proximal ureteral stones smaller than 2 cm.

Authors:  Elias S Hyams; Manoj Monga; Margaret S Pearle; Jodi A Antonelli; Michelle J Semins; Dean G Assimos; James E Lingeman; Vernon M Pais; Glenn M Preminger; Michael E Lipkin; Brian H Eisner; Ojas Shah; Roger L Sur; Patrick W Mufarrij; Brian R Matlaga
Journal:  J Urol       Date:  2014-07-09       Impact factor: 7.450

9.  Percutaneous nephrolithotomy for 1-2 cm lower-pole renal calculi.

Authors:  Percy Jal Chibber
Journal:  Indian J Urol       Date:  2008-10

10.  Management of 1-2 cm renal stones.

Authors:  Aneesh Srivastava; Saurabh S Chipde
Journal:  Indian J Urol       Date:  2013-07
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.