Definition of clinically insignificant residual fragments after percutaneous nephrolithotomy among urologists

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...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores: Tonyali, Senol|||0000-0003-1657-4044, Emiliani, Esteban|||0000-0003-4488-0022, Şener, Tarik Emre, Pietropaolo, Amelia|||0000-0001-7631-3108, Ӧzsoy, Mehmet, Aboumarzouk, Omar, Somani, Bhaskar K|||0000-0002-6248-6478, Kallidonis, Panagiotis, De Coninck, Vincent|||0000-0002-4983-5055, Talso, Michele|||0000-0001-9925-2280, Keller, Etienne Xavier, Macchione, Nicola, Tailly, Thomas
Tipo de recurso: artículo
Fecha de publicación:2022
País:España
Institución:Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona
Repositorio:Dipòsit Digital de Documents de la UAB
Idioma:inglés
OAI Identifier:oai:ddd.uab.cat:269575
Acceso en línea:https://ddd.uab.cat/record/269575
https://dx.doi.org/urn:doi:10.5173/ceju.2022.0115
Access Level:acceso abierto
Palabra clave:Percutaneous nephrolithotomy
Survey
Clinically insignificant residual fragment
Imaging
Descripción
Sumario: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.

Similares en LA Referencia