Literature DB >> 22000554

Evaluating the definition of "stone free status" in contemporary urologic literature.

L A Deters1, C M Jumper, P L Steinberg, V M Pais.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: There is no standardized definition of stone free after renal stone surgery. The lack of standardization prompted a review of the current urologic literature, to assess the definitions of stone free status, and how imaging is used to determine stone free status.
METHODS: A literature search on PubMed for the MeSH terms for percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL), ureteroscopy with lithotripsy, shock wave lithotripsy (SWL), and laser lithotripsy, published in English between January 2007 and January 2010 was performed. Case reports, articles not evaluating stone free outcomes, and review articles were excluded. Articles were evaluated for the treatment modality, definition of stone free status, and the imaging modality employed to determine stone free status.
RESULTS: This search yielded 417 articles of which 249 met inclusion criteria. Stone free was defined in 169 articles (68%). The most common definition of stone free was "no stones" (47%), but a total of seven different definitions were encountered. The most common treatment modality was PCNL (47%), followed by SWL (33%), and URS (13%). The most common detection modality was KUB alone (28%), the second most common being KUB and US combined (22%).
CONCLUSIONS: Nearly one-third of articles evaluating surgical management of urinary calculi do not define stone free status; when stone free is defined, there is wide variation as to that definition. Furthermore, vast differences exist in the type of imaging used to define stone free status. The urologic community should standardize the reporting of stone free outcomes in the urologic literature.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2011        PMID: 22000554     DOI: 10.5414/cn106787

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Clin Nephrol        ISSN: 0301-0430            Impact factor:   0.975


  10 in total

1.  Using a three-dimensional computer assisted stone volume estimates to evaluate extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy treatment of kidney stones.

Authors:  Lene Hyldgaard Bigum; Peter Sommer Ulriksen; Omar Salah Omar
Journal:  Urolithiasis       Date:  2016-02-25       Impact factor: 3.436

2.  Evaluation of stone-free rate using Guy's Stone Score and assessment of complications using modified Clavien grading system for percutaneous nephro-lithotomy.

Authors:  Rajan Kumar Sinha; Subhabrata Mukherjee; Tarun Jindal; Pramod Kumar Sharma; Barun Saha; Nilanjan Mitra; Jay Kumar; Chandranath Mukhopadhyay; Nabankur Ghosh; Mir Reza Kamal; Soumendra Nath Mandal; Dilip Karmakar
Journal:  Urolithiasis       Date:  2015-04-08       Impact factor: 3.436

3.  Lithiasis size estimation variability depending on image technical methodology.

Authors:  Enrique Argüelles Salido; Jesús Aguilar García; Jose María Lozano-Blasco; Jorge Subirá Rios; Pastora Beardo Villar; Pedro Campoy-Martínez; Rafael A Medina-López
Journal:  Urolithiasis       Date:  2013-08-03       Impact factor: 3.436

4.  Considerations in minimally invasive surgery for renal and ureteric calculi: a bicenter quality control study.

Authors:  Saskia Weltings; Hossain Roshani; Joost Leenarts; Rob Pelger
Journal:  Curr Urol       Date:  2014-02-10

5.  Challenging the wisdom of puncture at the calyceal fornix in percutaneous nephrolithotripsy: feasibility and safety study with 137 patients operated via a non-calyceal percutaneous track.

Authors:  Iason Kyriazis; Panagiotis Kallidonis; Marinos Vasilas; Vasilios Panagopoulos; Wissam Kamal; Evangelos Liatsikos
Journal:  World J Urol       Date:  2016-08-10       Impact factor: 4.226

6.  Non papillary mini-percutaneous nephrolithotomy: early experience.

Authors:  P Kallidonis; A Vagionis; T Vrettos; K Adamou; K Pagonis; P Ntasiotis; G A Callas; L Tanaseskou; A M Al Aown; E Liatsikos
Journal:  World J Urol       Date:  2020-05-29       Impact factor: 4.226

7.  Ureteroscopy: a population based study of clinical complications and possible risk factors for stone surgery.

Authors:  Magnus Wagenius; Mattias Rydberg; Marcin Popiolek; Andreas Forsvall; Johan Stranne; Adam Linder
Journal:  Cent European J Urol       Date:  2019-09-02

8.  Prevention of stone retropulsion during ureteroscopy: Limitations in resources invites revival of old techniques.

Authors:  Tarek K Fathelbab; Amr M Abdelhamid; Ahmed Z M Anwar; Ehab M Galal; Mamdouh M El-Hawy; Ahmed H Abdelgawad; Ehab R Tawfiek
Journal:  Arab J Urol       Date:  2020-08-13

9.  Safety and efficacy of using the stone cone and an entrapment and extraction device in ureteroscopic lithotripsy for ureteric stones.

Authors:  Waleed Shabana; Mohamed Teleb; Tamer Dawod
Journal:  Arab J Urol       Date:  2015-03-09

10.  Flexible and rigid ureteroscopy in outpatient surgery.

Authors:  Abeni Oitchayomi; Arnaud Doerfler; Sophie Le Gal; Charles Chawhan; Xavier Tillou
Journal:  BMC Urol       Date:  2016-01-28       Impact factor: 2.264

  10 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.