Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 6 de 6
Filter
1.
Urolithiasis ; 51(1): 26, 2022 Dec 31.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2237495

ABSTRACT

The predictors of treatment outcome after emergency extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy (SWL) are not well characterized. Therefore, based on a large prospective cohort, we aimed to develop and validate a nomogram for predicting treatment outcome after emergency SWL in patients with symptomatic ureteral stones. The development cohort included 358 patients with symptomatic ureteral stones who underwent emergency SWL between June 2020 and August 2021 in our hospital. One hundred and twenty-nine patients with symptomatic ureteral stones participated in the validation cohort from September 2021 to April 2022. The data were prospectively recorded. The backward stepwise selection was applied using the likelihood ratio test with Akaike's information criterion as the stopping rule. The efficacy of this predictive model was assessed concerning its clinical usefulness, calibration, and discrimination. Finally, 15.6% (56/358) of patients in the development cohort and 14.0% (18/129) of those in the validation cohort suffered from stone-free failure after emergency SWL. We identified four predictors for stone-free failure: stone size, stone density, skin to stone distance (SSD), and degree of hydronephrosis. This model showed good discrimination with an area under the receiver operating characteristic (AUROC) curves of 0.935 (0.899-0.971) and good calibration (P = 0.059). The decision curve analysis showed that the model was clinically valuable. In this large prospective cohort, we found that stone size, stone density, SSD, and degree of hydronephrosis were predictors of treatment outcome after emergency SWL. This nomogram will be helpful in preoperative risk stratification to provide individualized treatment recommendations for each patient. Furthermore, early identification and appropriate management of patients may increase the success rate of emergency SWL during the COVID-19 pandemic.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Hydronephrosis , Lithotripsy , Ureteral Calculi , Humans , Prospective Studies , Pandemics , COVID-19/epidemiology , COVID-19/therapy , Ureteral Calculi/therapy , Treatment Outcome , Retrospective Studies
2.
World J Urol ; 41(3): 797-803, 2023 Mar.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2220024

ABSTRACT

PURPOSE: To compare the effectiveness, safety, and cost between ultrasound-guided shock wave lithotripsy (SWL) with an early second session protocol and ureteroscopy (URS) in patients with proximal ureteral stones using the propensity score matching (PSM) method based on a large prospective study. METHODS: This prospective study was conducted in a tertiary hospital from June 2020 to April 2022. Patients who underwent lithotripsy (SWL or URS) for proximal ureteral stones were enrolled. The stone-free rate (SFR), complications, and cost were recorded. PSM analysis was performed. RESULTS: A total of 1230 patients were included, of whom 81.1% (998) were treated with SWL and 18.9% (232) were treated with URS. After PSM, the SWL group had an equivalent SFR at one month (88.7 vs. 83.6%, P = 0.114) compared with the URS group. Complications were rare and comparable between the two groups, while the incidence of ureteral injuries was higher in the URS group compared with the SWL group (1.4 vs. 0%, P = 0.011). The hospital stay was significantly shorter (1 day vs. 2 days, P < 0.001), and the cost was considerably less (2000 vs. 25,053, P < 0.001) in the SWL group compared with the URS group. CONCLUSION: This prospective PSM cohort demonstrated that ultrasound-guided SWL with an early second session protocol had equivalent effectiveness but better safety and lower cost compared with URS in the treatment of patients with proximal ureteral stones, whether the stones were radiopaque or radiolucent. These results will facilitate treatment decisions for proximal ureteral stones.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Lithotripsy , Ureteral Calculi , Humans , Ureteroscopy/methods , Prospective Studies , Pandemics , COVID-19/epidemiology , COVID-19/therapy , Lithotripsy/methods , Ureteral Calculi/therapy , Treatment Outcome
3.
BJU Int ; 130(3): 364-369, 2022 09.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2008738

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVE: To reassess the trends in upper urinary tract (UUT) stone disease burden and management in the UK during the last 5 years. METHODS: The present paper is our third quinquennial analysis of trends in the management of renal stones in England. Data were collected using the Hospital Episode Statistics database for the years 2015-2020 inclusive. These were then analysed, summarized and presented. RESULTS: The number of UUT stone episodes increased by 2.2% from 86 742 in 2014-2015 to 88 632 in 2019-2020 but annual prevalence remained static at 0.14%. The number of UUT stone episodes in those of working age has remained static but increased by 9% for patients aged > 60 years (from 27 329 to 29 842). The number of shockwave lithotripsy (SWL) treatments decreased by 6.8%. There was a further increase in the use of ureteroscopy (URS) between 2015 and 2020 of 18.9%. Within this subgroup, flexible URS had the most rapid increase in use, with a rise of 20.4% from 7108 to 8558 recorded cases. Over the 20-year period from 2000 to 2020 there was a remarkable 257% increase in URS cases. There was a further decline in open surgery for UUT stone disease by 40%. Stone surgery day-case numbers have increased by 14.7% (from 31 014 to 35 566), with a corresponding decline in the number of bed days of 14.3%. Emergency cases increased by 40%, while elective cases saw a slight increase of 1.9%. CONCLUSION: The present study shows a plateauing in the prevalence of UUT stone disease in England in the last 5 years, with a move towards day-case procedures and an increase in the proportion of emergency work. For the first time in England, URS has overtaken SWL as the most common procedure for treating UUT stone disease, which might reflect patients' or physicians' preference for a more effective definitive treatment.


Subject(s)
Kidney Calculi , Lithotripsy , Urinary Calculi , Hospitals , Humans , Kidney Calculi/epidemiology , Kidney Calculi/therapy , Lithotripsy/methods , Treatment Outcome , Ureteroscopes , Ureteroscopy/methods , Urinary Calculi/epidemiology , Urinary Calculi/therapy
4.
BJU Int ; 130(5): 655-661, 2022 11.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1891506

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVES: To demonstrate the efficacy and cost-effectiveness of acute extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy (ESWL) for ureteric stones we present our experience of ESWL in 530 ureteric stone cases, in the largest UK series we are aware of to date. ESWL is underutilised in ureteric stone management. The Getting It Right First Time (GIRFT) report showed just four units nationally treated >10% of acute ureteric stones with ESWL. Despite guideline recommendations as a first-line treatment option, few large volume studies have been published. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Retrospective review of prospectively collected data between December 2012 and February 2020 was performed. Data relating to patient demographics, stone characteristics, skin-to-stone distance, and treatment failure were collected. Cost analysis was conducted by the Trust's surgical financial manager. Multivariable analyses were performed to assess for predictors of ESWL success. RESULTS: A success rate of 68% (95% confidence interval 64%-72%) at 6 weeks was observed (n = 530). The median (interquartile range) number of treatment sessions was 2 (1, 2). Stone diameter was observed to be a predictor of ESWL success. The small number of stones treated of >13 mm or >1250 HU had an ~50% chance of successful treatment. Acute ureteric ESWL was less costly than acute ureterorenoscopy, consistent with findings from previous NHS studies. CONCLUSION: Acute ESWL is a safe, reliable, and financially viable treatment option for a wider spectrum of patients than reflected in international guidelines based on our large, heterogenous series. In the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) era, with theatre access reduced and concerns over aerosol generating procedures, acute ESWL remains an attractive first-line treatment option.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Lithotripsy , Ureteral Calculi , Humans , Hospitals, General , Ureteral Calculi/surgery , Lithotripsy/methods , Cost-Benefit Analysis , Treatment Outcome
5.
BJUI Compass ; 2(2): 92-96, 2021 Mar.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1813467

ABSTRACT

Objectives: To determine the best way to intervene for ureteric stones which still require treatment during the COVID-19 pandemic, with respect to infection control. In this setting, in which resources are constrained, extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy (SWL) has prima facie advantages over ureteroscopy (URS). It is also necessary to also consider posttreatment resource consumption in regards to complications and repeat procedures. Subjects and methods: The ideal ureteric stone treatment during a pandemic such as COVID-19 would involve minimum resource consumption and a minimum number of patient attendances. We compared all patients initially treated with SWL to those initially treated with URS for acute ureteral colic within the state of Victoria, Australia in 2017. Results: A total of 2724 ureteric stones were analyzed, a cumulative "3-month exposure and burden on the healthcare system" was calculated for each patient by their initial procedure type. The readmission rate for URS was significantly higher than for SWL, 0.92 readmissions/patient for URS versus 0.54 readmissions/patient for SWL (P < .001). The cumulative hospital stay per patient for these two procedures was 2.35 days for SWL versus 3.21 days for URS (P < .001). The number of procedures per patient was 1.52 for SWL versus 1.89 for URS (P = .0213). Conclusions: Patients with ureteric stones treated initially by SWL have shorter length of stay with fewer overall attendances and procedures at 3 months than those treated with URS. During a pandemic such as COVID-19, SWL may have benefits in preserving hospital resources and limiting opportunity for virus transmission, compared to URS.

6.
J Endourol ; 36(10): 1271-1276, 2022 10.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1764487

ABSTRACT

With the rising incidence of urinary stone disease, web searches for stone treatments are increasing. Google Trends (GT) data for a 10-year period and during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic were used to investigate the trend variations for the most popular minimally invasive stone therapies based on time and region. GT can create a line graph that shows how interest in various territories has risen or decreased over time. Search terms were generated for extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy (SWL), percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL), retrograde intrarenal surgery (RIRS), ureterorenoscopy (URS), and laparoscopic pyelolithotomy/ureterolithotomy. Using the "global" inquiry category, the data were included "worldwide" from January 1, 2009 to December 31, 2021. In recent years, Google and YouTube searches for total minimally invasive stone treatments have increased. RIRS, URS, and PCNL trends revealed a substantial rise in the regression analysis (p < 0.05), but SWL trends showed a significant reduction (p < 0.05). RIRS was the main intervention with interest growing most over time. Web searches for stone treatments decreased in the first period of the COVID-19 pandemic. To a rising degree of involvement, patients and physicians from all over the world utilize the internet to search for minimally invasive stone operations. RIRS, URS, and PCNL are becoming more popular in web trends and SWL still has the highest trend despite the decline in popularity recently. The number of trustworthy web-based tools about stone treatments should be increased, and patients and physicians should be directed to these sources.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Kidney Calculi , Lithotripsy , Urinary Calculi , Urolithiasis , Humans , Internet , Kidney Calculi/surgery , Pandemics , Treatment Outcome , Urinary Calculi/epidemiology , Urinary Calculi/surgery , Urolithiasis/therapy
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL