Definition of clinically insignificant residual fragments after percutaneous nephrolithotomy among urologists : a world-wide survey by EAU-YAU Endourology and Urolithiasis Working Group
Tonyali, Senol (Istanbul University Istanbul School of Medicine)
Emiliani, Esteban (Fundació Puigvert)
Şener, Tarik Emre (European Association of Urology - Young Academic Urologists Endourology and Urolithiasis Working Group)
Pietropaolo, Amelia (European Association of Urology - Young Academic Urologists Endourology and Urolithiasis Working Group)
Ӧzsoy, Mehmet (European Association of Urology - Young Academic Urologists Endourology and Urolithiasis Working Group)
Aboumarzouk, Omar (European Association of Urology - Young Academic Urologists Endourology and Urolithiasis Working Group)
Somani, Bhaskar (European Association of Urology - Young Academic Urologists Endourology and Urolithiasis Working Group)
Kallidonis, Panagiotis (European Association of Urology - Young Academic Urologists Endourology and Urolithiasis Working Group)
De Coninck, Vincent (European Association of Urology - Young Academic Urologists Endourology and Urolithiasis Working Group)
Talso, Michele (European Association of Urology - Young Academic Urologists Endourology and Urolithiasis Working Group)
Keller, Etienne Xavier (European Association of Urology - Young Academic Urologists Endourology and Urolithiasis Working Group)
Macchione, Nicola (European Association of Urology - Young Academic Urologists Endourology and Urolithiasis Working Group)
Tailly, Thomas (European Association of Urology - Young Academic Urologists Endourology and Urolithiasis Working Group)
Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona

Data:	2022
Resum:	The aim of this article was to evaluate the current perception of urologists as to what size is considered as a clinically insignificant residual fragment (CIRF). A survey was globally distributed to the members of the Endourological Society via SurveyMonkey. A total of 385 participants responded to the survey on CIRF. Most participants considered 2 mm (29%) as CIRF threshold, followed by 3 mm (24%), 4 mm (22%), 0 mm (14%), 5 mm (8%) and 1 mm (3%). North American urologists considered CIRF to be smaller than urologists from Asia, Eurasia and South America, (p-values ≤0. 001, 0. 037 and 0. 015 respectively). European urologists identified smaller CIRF in comparison to Asian urologists (p-value = 0. 001). Urologists mainly using a pneumatic lithotripter accepted larger fragments as CIRF, compared to urologists mainly using ultrasonic devices or a combination of ultrasonic and pneumatic devices (p-value = 0. 026 and 0. 005 respectively). Similarly, urologists mainly performing X-Ray and ultrasound as post-operative imaging accepted larger fragments as CIRF in comparison to urologists mainly performing non-contrast computed tomography (p-value = 0. 001). What is considered as CIRF varies between urologist from different continents and seems to be associated with the lithotripter used and the post-operative imaging modality of preference to assess treatment success.
Drets:	Aquest document està subjecte a una llicència d'ús Creative Commons. Es permet la reproducció total o parcial, la distribució, la comunicació pública de l'obra, i la creació d'obres derivades, sempre que no sigui amb finalitats comercials i que es distribueixin sota la mateixa llicència que regula l'obra original. Cal que es reconegui l'autoria de l'obra original.
Llengua:	Anglès
Document:	Article ; recerca ; Versió publicada
Matèria:	Percutaneous nephrolithotomy ; Survey ; Clinically insignificant residual fragment ; Imaging
Publicat a:	Central European Journal of Urology, Vol. 75 (august 2022) , p. 311-316, ISSN 2080-4873

DOI: 10.5173/ceju.2022.0115
PMID: 36381161

6 p, 873.5 KB

El registre apareix a les col·leccions:
Articles > Articles de recerca
Articles > Articles publicats