Literature DB >> 27635290

Evaluation of ureteroscopy outcome in a teaching hospital.

Abdulla Al-Naimi1, Abdulqadir Alobaidy1, Ahmad Majzoub1, Tarek Ahmed Amin Ibrahim1.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate factors affecting semi-rigid ureteroscopy (URS) results highlighting the influence of teaching on its outcomes.
MATERIAL AND METHODS: We reviewed the files of 891 adult patients who had undergone 1182 ureteroscopies at our institute during the period from July 2008 to June 2011. The outcomes of all URSs were evaluated. Outcomes were measured by stone- free rate and presence of complications, which were assessed using the Clavien-Dindo system. Patients were divided into 2 groups; Group 1 (favorable outcome) became stone- free after the first URS and had no documented complications, while Group 2 (unfavorable outcome) had residual stones and/or complications. Group 2 was subdivided according to the skill level of the operating surgeon into two subgroups. Patients belonging to subgroup A had their procedures performed by urology trainees under direct supervision of expert urologists, while those in subgroup B had their procedures performed by the expert urologists themselves. All groups were compared using univariate (chi-square and t tests) and multivariate (logistic regression) statistical tests to identify significant risk factors. All data was analyzed using SPSS.
RESULTS: A total of 1182 URSs were evaluated. 958 patients had a favorable outcome (Group 1) while 224 patients had an unfavorable outcome (Group 2). Factors associated with an unfavorable outcome include location of the presenting stone (p<0.001) and presence of stone impaction (p<0.001). No statistically significant differences were detected in the overall complication rate between trainees and expert urologists. Trainees stone- free rate was comparable to that of experts; 90.3% vs. 91.1%, respectively, p=0.6.
CONCLUSION: Factors such as stone impaction and proximal location are associated with an unfavorable surgical outcome. In a high- volume teaching hospital, semi-rigid URS done by trainees under direct supervision is safe and their outcome is comparable to literature findings.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Complications; outcome; stone- free rate; teaching; ureteroscopy

Year:  2016        PMID: 27635290      PMCID: PMC5012442          DOI: 10.5152/tud.2016.17037

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Turk J Urol        ISSN: 2149-3235


  23 in total

1.  Error, stress, and teamwork in medicine and aviation: cross sectional surveys.

Authors:  J B Sexton; E J Thomas; R L Helmreich
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2000-03-18

Review 2.  Complications of ureteroscopy.

Authors:  D Brooke Johnson; Margaret S Pearle
Journal:  Urol Clin North Am       Date:  2004-02       Impact factor: 2.241

Review 3.  Handling and prevention of complications in stone basketing.

Authors:  Jean J M C H de la Rosette; Thomas Skrekas; Joseph W Segura
Journal:  Eur Urol       Date:  2006-02-28       Impact factor: 20.096

4.  Impact of case volume on outcomes of ureteroscopy for ureteral stones: the clinical research office of the endourological society ureteroscopy global study.

Authors:  Sangam V Kandasami; Charalampos Mamoulakis; Ahmed R El-Nahas; Timothy Averch; O Levent Tuncay; Ashish Rawandale-Patil; Luigi Cormio; Jean J de la Rosette
Journal:  Eur Urol       Date:  2014-07-12       Impact factor: 20.096

5.  Differences in ureteroscopic stone treatment and outcomes for distal, mid-, proximal, or multiple ureteral locations: the Clinical Research Office of the Endourological Society ureteroscopy global study.

Authors:  Enrique Perez Castro; Palle J S Osther; Viorel Jinga; Hassan Razvi; Konstantinos G Stravodimos; Kandarp Parikh; Ali R Kural; Jean J de la Rosette
Journal:  Eur Urol       Date:  2014-01-23       Impact factor: 20.096

6.  Primary endoscopic treatment of ureteric calculi. A review of 378 cases.

Authors:  P Puppo; G Ricciotti; W Bozzo; C Introini
Journal:  Eur Urol       Date:  1999       Impact factor: 20.096

7.  Does open stone surgery still play a role in the treatment of urolithiasis? Data of a primary urolithiasis center.

Authors:  Patrick Honeck; Gunnar Wendt-Nordahl; Patrick Krombach; Thorsten Bach; Axel Häcker; Peter Alken; Maurice Stephan Michel
Journal:  J Endourol       Date:  2009-07       Impact factor: 2.942

Review 8.  Ureteroscopic injuries to the upper urinary tract.

Authors:  J L Huffman
Journal:  Urol Clin North Am       Date:  1989-05       Impact factor: 2.241

9.  Reporting ureteroscopy complications using the modified clavien classification system.

Authors:  Ahmed Khalil Ibrahim
Journal:  Urol Ann       Date:  2015 Jan-Mar

Review 10.  The history of urinary stones: in parallel with civilization.

Authors:  Ahmet Tefekli; Fatin Cezayirli
Journal:  ScientificWorldJournal       Date:  2013-11-20
View more
  2 in total

1.  Is spinal anesthesia an alternative and feasible method for proximal ureteral stone treatment?

Authors:  Ramazan Topaktaş; Selçuk Altin; Cemil Aydin; Ali Akkoç; Ahmet Ürkmez; Zeynep Banu Aydin
Journal:  Cent European J Urol       Date:  2020-06-15

2.  External Validation of the S.T.O.N.E. Score in Predicting Stone-Free Status After Rigid Ureteroscopic Lithotripsy.

Authors:  Noppavut Sirirak; Premsant Sangkum; Yada Phengsalae; Wisoot Kongchareonsombat; Charoen Leenanupunth; Wattanachai Ratanapornsompong; Chinnakhet Ketsuwan
Journal:  Res Rep Urol       Date:  2021-03-23
  2 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.