BACKGROUND: We describe the practice variability of CUA (Canadian Urological Association) members and factors which predict these patterns for common stone scenarios. METHODS: We asked 308 English- and 52 French-speaking CUA members to complete online surveys in their respective languages. We collected demographic information on fellowship training, shock wave lithotripsy (SWL) access, academic setting and whether they are at a hospital with regionalized surgical services. Respondents indicated their actual as well as ideal treatment for scenarios of renal, proximal and distal ureteric calculi. RESULTS: In total, 131 urologists responded (36% response rate), all of whom treated urolithiasis. Of this number, 17% had endourology fellowship training, 76% had access to SWL, 42% were at an academic institution and 66% were at institutions with regionalized surgical services. Actual and ideal treatment modalities selected for symptomatic, distal and proximal ureteric stones (4, 8, 14 mm) were consistent with published guidelines. There were discrepancies between the use of ureteroscopy and SWL in actual versus ideal scenarios. Actual and ideal practices were congruent for proximal ureteric stones and asymptomatic renal calculi. In multivariate analysis, respondents were less likely to perform ureteroscopy on proximal 4- and 8-mm stones if they were at a hospital with regionalized surgical services (OR: 0.097; 95% CI: 0.01-0.76, p = 0.03 and OR: 0.330; 95% CI: 0.13-0.83, p = 0.02). INTERPRETATION: There is clinical variability in the management of urolithiasis in Canada; however, management approaches fall within published guidelines. Type of hospital and access to operating room resources may affect treatment modality selection.
BACKGROUND: We describe the practice variability of CUA (Canadian Urological Association) members and factors which predict these patterns for common stone scenarios. METHODS: We asked 308 English- and 52 French-speaking CUA members to complete online surveys in their respective languages. We collected demographic information on fellowship training, shock wave lithotripsy (SWL) access, academic setting and whether they are at a hospital with regionalized surgical services. Respondents indicated their actual as well as ideal treatment for scenarios of renal, proximal and distal ureteric calculi. RESULTS: In total, 131 urologists responded (36% response rate), all of whom treated urolithiasis. Of this number, 17% had endourology fellowship training, 76% had access to SWL, 42% were at an academic institution and 66% were at institutions with regionalized surgical services. Actual and ideal treatment modalities selected for symptomatic, distal and proximal ureteric stones (4, 8, 14 mm) were consistent with published guidelines. There were discrepancies between the use of ureteroscopy and SWL in actual versus ideal scenarios. Actual and ideal practices were congruent for proximal ureteric stones and asymptomatic renal calculi. In multivariate analysis, respondents were less likely to perform ureteroscopy on proximal 4- and 8-mm stones if they were at a hospital with regionalized surgical services (OR: 0.097; 95% CI: 0.01-0.76, p = 0.03 and OR: 0.330; 95% CI: 0.13-0.83, p = 0.02). INTERPRETATION: There is clinical variability in the management of urolithiasis in Canada; however, management approaches fall within published guidelines. Type of hospital and access to operating room resources may affect treatment modality selection.
Authors: Glenn M Preminger; Hans-Göran Tiselius; Dean G Assimos; Peter Alken; Colin Buck; Michele Gallucci; Thomas Knoll; James E Lingeman; Stephen Y Nakada; Margaret Sue Pearle; Kemal Sarica; Christian Türk; J Stuart Wolf Journal: J Urol Date: 2007-12 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: Marko Simunovic; Marc-Erick Thériault; Lawrence Paszat; Angela Coates; Timothy Whelan; Eric Holowaty; Mark Levine Journal: Can J Surg Date: 2005-04 Impact factor: 2.089
Authors: D Robert Siemens; Karleen M Schulze; William J Mackillop; Michael D Brundage; Patti A Groome Journal: Can J Urol Date: 2005-04 Impact factor: 1.344