Journals / Journal of Urological Surgery / 2022 / Cilt: 9 - Sayı: 1

A Novel Survey of the Treatment Trends and Technical Details for Extracorporeal Shockwave Lithotripsy From Experienced European Endourologists

Pages
33–39
Publication Date
2022-10-18
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

Stone density was the most preferred for the ESWL decision and the cut-off value was

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Objective: This study aimed to evaluate the practice of extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy (ESWL) treatment from different aspects (indications, technical, and equipment-related characteristics) through a questionnaire response by the experienced endourologist in the European centers.
📊
Key Findings & Data:Materials and Methods: A survey of 72 questions on four main topics was prepared by our team to evaluate the demographics of technical equipment, treatment applications, and pretreatment preparations.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:Stone density was the most preferred for the ESWL decision and the cut-off value was
🔬Design:Survey & Empirical Study
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Abstract

Objective: This study aimed to evaluate the practice of extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy (ESWL) treatment from different aspects (indications, technical, and equipment-related characteristics) through a questionnaire response by the experienced endourologist in the European centers. Materials and Methods: A survey of 72 questions on four main topics was prepared by our team to evaluate the demographics of technical equipment, treatment applications, and pretreatment preparations. The survey was mailed to 200 endourologists, of whom 97 academic endourologists enrolled, 75% of them were from university or training hospitals and 69% have experience of >10 years in urology. Results: Of the urologist, 74% had direct access to ESWL-device, and the endourologist was mainly responsible for the ESWL unit with the 61% rate and was secondly the technician, which was trained on ESWL (25%). The factors that affect the decision for ESWL include the stone’s size, location, density, composition, and kidney anatomy. Stone density was the most preferred for the ESWL decision and the cut-off value was

🔖

Cite This Article

Tavukçu, H. H., Yenigürbüz, S., Ediz, C., Yılmaz, Ö., Pehlivanoğlu, M., Yeşildal, C., Kızılkan, Y. E. (2022). A Novel Survey of the Treatment Trends and Technical Details for Extracorporeal Shockwave Lithotripsy From Experienced European Endourologists. Journal of Urological Surgery, Cilt: 9 - Sayı: 1, 33–39. https://ajindex.com/articles/568608

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (12)

  1. Sorokin I, Mamoulakis C, Miyazawa K, Rodgers A, Talati J, Lotan Y. Epidemiology of stone disease across the world. World J Urol 2017;35:1301- 1320
  2. Yildirim K, Olcucu MT, Colak ME. Trends in the treatment of urinary stone disease in Turkey. PeerJ 2018;6:e5390
  3. Heers H, Turney BW. Trends in urological stone disease: a 5-year update of hospital episode statistics. BJU Int 2016;118:785-789
  4. Srisubat A, Potisat S, Lojanapiwat B, Setthawong V, Laopaiboon M. Extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL) versus percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL) or retrograde intrarenal surgery (RIRS) for kidney stones. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2014:CD007044
  5. Junbo L, Yugen L, Guo J, Jing H, Ruichao Y, Tao W. Retrograde Intrarenal Surgery vs. Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy vs. Extracorporeal Shock Wave Lithotripsy for Lower Pole Renal Stones 10-20 mm: A Meta-analysis and Systematic Review. Urol J 2019;16:97-106
  6. Türk C, Neisius AA, Petrik A, Seitz C, Skolarikos KTA, Guidelines Associates: J.F. Donaldson TD, N. Grivas YR; EAU Guidelines on Urolithiasis. 2018
  7. Chaussy CG, Tiselius HG. How can and should we optimize extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy? Urolithiasis 2018;46:3- 8. Ates F, Zor M, Yılmaz O, Tuncer M, Ozturk M, Gurbuz C, Atis G, Koca O, Yildirim A, Eryildirim B, Kucuk EV, Narter F, Senkul T, Sarica K. Management behaviors of the urology practitioners to the small lower calyceal stones: the results of a web-based survey. Urolithiasis 2016;44:277-281
  8. Schnabel MJ, Brummeisl W, Burger M, Rassweiler JJ, Knoll T, Neisius A, Chaussy CG, Fritsche HM. Stoßwellenlithotripsie in Deutschland: Ergebnisse einer deutschlandweiten Umfrage [Shock wave lithotripsy in Germany: Results of a nationwide survey]. Urologe A 2015;54:1277-1282
  9. Proietti S, Somani BK, Pietropaolo A, Saitta G, Rodríguez-Socarrás ME, Rosso M, Bellinzoni P, Gaboardi F, Giusti G. Italian endourological panorama: results from a national survey. Cent European J Urol 2018;71:190-195
  10. Lantz AG, McKay J, Ordon M, Pace KT, Monga M, Honey RJ. Shockwave Lithotripsy Practice Pattern Variations Among and Between American and Canadian Urologists: In Support of Guidelines. J Endourol 2016;30:918-922
  11. Sharma NL, Alexander CE, Grout E, Turney BW. Shock-wave lithotripsy: variance within UK practice. Urolithiasis 2017;45:193-201
  12. Culkin DJ, Exaire EJ, Green D, Soloway MS, Gross AJ, Desai MR, White JR, Lightner DJ. Anticoagulation and antiplatelet therapy in urological practice: ICUD/AUA revi