Literature DB >> 22245295

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

M Adam Childs1, Laureano J Rangel, James E Lingeman, Amy E Krambeck.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To assess the surgeon factors influencing the surgical treatment decisions for symptomatic stone disease. The factors influencing the selection of shock wave lithotripsy (SWL), ureteroscopy, or percutaneous nephrolithotomy to treat symptomatic stone disease are not well studied.
METHODS: Electronic surveys were sent to urologists with American Medical Association membership. Information on training, practice, and ideal treatment of common stone scenarios was obtained and statistically analyzed.
RESULTS: In November 2009, 600 surveys were sent and 180 were completed. High-volume SWL practices (>100 cases annually) were more common in community practice (P < .01), and high-volume ureteroscopy and percutaneous nephrolithotomy practices were more common in academic practice (P = .03). Community practice was associated with SWL selection for proximal urolithiasis and upper pole nephrolithiasis (P < .005). An increasing time since urologic training was associated with SWL selection for proximal urolithiasis and upper pole nephrolithiasis (P < .01). Urologists reporting shock wave lithotriptor ownership were 3-4 times more likely to select SWL for urolithiasis or nephrolithiasis compared with urologists who did not own a lithotripter (P < .01). Routine concern for stent pain and rigid ureteroscope preference (vs flexible) were associated with SWL selection (P < .03).
CONCLUSION: Surgeon factors significantly affected urolithiasis treatment selection. SWL was associated with community urology practice, increasing time since training, shock wave lithotriptor ownership, concern for stent pain, and ureteroscope preference.
Copyright © 2012 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2012        PMID: 22245295      PMCID: PMC4465295          DOI: 10.1016/j.urology.2011.11.024

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Urology        ISSN: 0090-4295            Impact factor:   2.649


  19 in total

Review 1.  Management of ureteral calculi: a cost comparison and decision making analysis.

Authors:  Yair Lotan; Matthew T Gettman; Claus G Roehrborn; Jeffrey A Cadeddu; Margaret S Pearle
Journal:  J Urol       Date:  2002-04       Impact factor: 7.450

2.  Urologic diseases in America project: urolithiasis.

Authors:  Margaret S Pearle; Elizabeth A Calhoun; Gary C Curhan
Journal:  J Urol       Date:  2005-03       Impact factor: 7.450

Review 3.  Treatment selection and outcomes: ureteral calculi.

Authors:  J Stuart Wolf
Journal:  Urol Clin North Am       Date:  2007-08       Impact factor: 2.241

Review 4.  Getting at the facts on imaging utilization growth.

Authors:  James W Moser
Journal:  J Am Coll Radiol       Date:  2005-09       Impact factor: 5.532

5.  Stone attenuation and skin-to-stone distance on computed tomography predicts for stone fragmentation by shock wave lithotripsy.

Authors:  Alexandra E Perks; Trevor D Schuler; Jason Lee; Daniela Ghiculete; Dae-Gyun Chung; R John D'A Honey; Kenneth T Pace
Journal:  Urology       Date:  2008-07-31       Impact factor: 2.649

6.  Contemporary surgical management of upper urinary tract calculi.

Authors:  Brian R Matlaga
Journal:  J Urol       Date:  2009-03-17       Impact factor: 7.450

Review 7.  Minimally invasive approaches to upper urinary tract urolithiasis.

Authors:  Geoffrey R Wignall; Benjamin K Canales; John D Denstedt; Manoj Monga
Journal:  Urol Clin North Am       Date:  2008-08       Impact factor: 2.241

8.  Efficiency and cost of treating proximal ureteral stones: shock wave lithotripsy versus ureteroscopy plus holmium:yttrium-aluminum-garnet laser.

Authors:  Brian D Parker; Robert W Frederick; T Philip Reilly; Patrick S Lowry; Erin T Bird
Journal:  Urology       Date:  2004-12       Impact factor: 2.649

9.  Evaluating the importance of mean stone density and skin-to-stone distance in predicting successful shock wave lithotripsy of renal and ureteric calculi.

Authors:  Joshua D Wiesenthal; Daniela Ghiculete; R John D'A Honey; Kenneth T Pace
Journal:  Urol Res       Date:  2010-07-13

10.  Imaging use among employed and self-employed urologists.

Authors:  John M Hollingsworth; John D Birkmeyer; Yun S Zhang; Lingling Zhang; Brent K Hollenbeck
Journal:  J Urol       Date:  2010-10-16       Impact factor: 7.450

View more
  6 in total

1.  Percutaneous endoscopic treatment for urinary stones in pediatric patients: where we are now.

Authors:  Paolo Caione; Giuseppe Collura; Michele Innocenzi; Mauro De Dominicis; Simona Gerocarni Nappo; Nicola Capozza
Journal:  Transl Pediatr       Date:  2016-10

2.  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

3.  Image-Guided Access for Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy: A Single-Center Experience in 591 Patients.

Authors:  Patrick L Vande Lune; David Thayer; Naganathan Mani; Andrew Warren; Alana C Desai; Daniel J Picus; Andrew J Gunn
Journal:  Curr Urol       Date:  2019-07-20

4.  Difference of opinion--In the era of flexible ureteroscopy is there still a place for Shock-wave lithotripsy? Opinion: NO.

Authors:  Fabio C Vicentini
Journal:  Int Braz J Urol       Date:  2015 Mar-Apr       Impact factor: 1.541

5.  National Practice Pattern and Time Trends in Treatment of Upper Urinary Tract Calculi in Korea: a Nationwide Population-Based Study.

Authors:  Jinsung Park; Beomseok Suh; Myung Shin Lee; Seung Hyo Woo; Dong Wook Shin
Journal:  J Korean Med Sci       Date:  2016-12       Impact factor: 2.153

6.  Does Early Retrograde Intrarenal Surgery Improve the Cost-Effectiveness of Renal Stone Management?

Authors:  So Young Yang; Hae Do Jung; Sun Hong Kwon; Eui Kyung Lee; Joo Yong Lee; Seon Heui Lee
Journal:  Yonsei Med J       Date:  2020-06       Impact factor: 2.759

  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.