PURPOSE: The Post-Ureteroscopic Lesion Scale (PULS) offers a simple grading system for the description of ureteral lesions after ureteroscopy. In this article, we present the results of a video-based multicenter evaluation of the inter-rater reliability of clinically important PULS grades 0-3. METHODS: Video sequences at the end of ureteroscopy (final passage) were recorded for 100 consecutive patients at a single institution and assessed by experienced urologists (n = 20) and senior residents (n = 17) at 19 international centers. The cohort included only patients with lesions grades 0-3 (with grades 2 and 3 subsumed as 2 + since distinction is defined by an extravasation of contrast medium in fluoroscopy). The gradings were evaluated for inter-rater reliability and in terms of simplicity, validity, comprehensibility, reproducibility, and usefulness. RESULTS: Overall, inter-rater reliability was high (Kendall's W = 0.69, p < 0.001) and was comparable between specialists (Kendall's W = 0.69, p < 0.001) and residents (Kendall's W = 0.71, p < 0.001). The matched ratings showed grade 0 in 43.0 % of patients and grades 1 or 2 + in 44.0 and 13.0 % of patients, respectively. Results of the questionnaires indicated a high degree of acceptance, with an overall rating of 1.76 (1.64-1.93 for different items, scale 1-6). CONCLUSIONS: Inter-rater reliability of the endoscopically assessable PULS was high among urologists with different levels of experience in different countries worldwide. The validated PULS system may be used for standardized reporting of ureteral lesions/injuries after ureteroscopy. In addition, PULS will enable more selective standardization of indications for postoperative DJ stenting based on the randomized controlled trials.
PURPOSE: The Post-Ureteroscopic Lesion Scale (PULS) offers a simple grading system for the description of ureteral lesions after ureteroscopy. In this article, we present the results of a video-based multicenter evaluation of the inter-rater reliability of clinically important PULS grades 0-3. METHODS: Video sequences at the end of ureteroscopy (final passage) were recorded for 100 consecutive patients at a single institution and assessed by experienced urologists (n = 20) and senior residents (n = 17) at 19 international centers. The cohort included only patients with lesions grades 0-3 (with grades 2 and 3 subsumed as 2 + since distinction is defined by an extravasation of contrast medium in fluoroscopy). The gradings were evaluated for inter-rater reliability and in terms of simplicity, validity, comprehensibility, reproducibility, and usefulness. RESULTS: Overall, inter-rater reliability was high (Kendall's W = 0.69, p < 0.001) and was comparable between specialists (Kendall's W = 0.69, p < 0.001) and residents (Kendall's W = 0.71, p < 0.001). The matched ratings showed grade 0 in 43.0 % of patients and grades 1 or 2 + in 44.0 and 13.0 % of patients, respectively. Results of the questionnaires indicated a high degree of acceptance, with an overall rating of 1.76 (1.64-1.93 for different items, scale 1-6). CONCLUSIONS: Inter-rater reliability of the endoscopically assessable PULS was high among urologists with different levels of experience in different countries worldwide. The validated PULS system may be used for standardized reporting of ureteral lesions/injuries after ureteroscopy. In addition, PULS will enable more selective standardization of indications for postoperative DJ stenting based on the randomized controlled trials.
Authors: Thomas H Lynch; Luis Martínez-Piñeiro; Eugen Plas; Efraim Serafetinides; Levent Türkeri; Richard A Santucci; Markus Hohenfellner Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2005-01 Impact factor: 20.096
Authors: Jorge Rioja; Charalampos Mamoulakis; Hiren Sodha; Sven Suwijn; Pilar Laguna; Jean de la Rosette Journal: J Endourol Date: 2011-03-01 Impact factor: 2.942
Authors: Martin Schoenthaler; Konrad Wilhelm; Franklin E Kuehhas; Erik Farin; Christian Bach; Noor Buchholz; Arkadiusz Miernik Journal: J Endourol Date: 2012-08-27 Impact factor: 2.942
Authors: Markus J Bader; Ronald Sroka; Christian Gratzke; Michael Seitz; Patrick Weidlich; Michael Staehler; Armin Becker; Christian G Stief; Oliver Reich Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2008-12-17 Impact factor: 20.096
Authors: Adam E Perlmutter; Can Talug; William F Tarry; Stanley Zaslau; Hesam Mohseni; Stanley J Kandzari Journal: Urology Date: 2008-02 Impact factor: 2.649
Authors: A J Gross; J Rassweiler; K D Sievert; A Miernik; J Westphal; H Leyh; T R W Herrmann; P Olbert; A Häcker; A Bachmann; R Homberg; J Klein; M Schoenthaler; C Netsch Journal: Urologe A Date: 2017-03 Impact factor: 0.639
Authors: M May; M Schönthaler; C Gilfrich; I Wolff; J Peter; A Miernik; H-M Fritsche; M Burger; M Schostak; S Lebentrau Journal: Urologe A Date: 2018-02 Impact factor: 0.639
Authors: Rustin Massoudi; Thomas J Metzner; Buzz Bonneau; Tin C Ngo; Rajesh Shinghal; John T Leppert Journal: J Endourol Date: 2018-01-09 Impact factor: 2.942
Authors: Juan P Caballero-Romeu; Juan A Galán-Llopis; Federico Soria; Esther Morcillo-Martín; Pablo Caballero-Pérez; Julia E De La Cruz-Conty; Jesús Romero-Maroto Journal: Sci Rep Date: 2018-01-11 Impact factor: 4.379