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...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Authors: 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
Format: article
Publication Date:2022
Country:España
Institution:Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona
Repository:Dipòsit Digital de Documents de la UAB
Language:English
OAI Identifier:oai:ddd.uab.cat:269575
Online Access:https://ddd.uab.cat/record/269575
https://dx.doi.org/urn:doi:10.5173/ceju.2022.0115
Access Level:Open access
Keyword:Percutaneous nephrolithotomy
Survey
Clinically insignificant residual fragment
Imaging
id ES_fb981e5e4341995cb80bb7f409d7cc4a
oai_identifier_str oai:ddd.uab.cat:269575
network_acronym_str ES
network_name_str España
repository_id_str
spelling Definition of clinically insignificant residual fragments after percutaneous nephrolithotomy among urologistsa world-wide survey by EAU-YAU Endourology and Urolithiasis Working GroupTonyali, Senol|||0000-0003-1657-4044Emiliani, Esteban|||0000-0003-4488-0022Şener, Tarik EmrePietropaolo, Amelia|||0000-0001-7631-3108Ӧzsoy, MehmetAboumarzouk, OmarSomani, Bhaskar K|||0000-0002-6248-6478Kallidonis, PanagiotisDe Coninck, Vincent|||0000-0002-4983-5055Talso, Michele|||0000-0001-9925-2280Keller, Etienne XavierMacchione, NicolaTailly, ThomasPercutaneous nephrolithotomySurveyClinically insignificant residual fragmentImagingThe 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.Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona 22022-01-0120222022-01-01Articlehttp://purl.org/coar/resource_type/c_6501VoRhttp://purl.org/coar/version/c_970fb48d4fbd8a85info:eu-repo/semantics/articleapplication/pdfhttps://ddd.uab.cat/record/269575https://dx.doi.org/urn:doi:10.5173/ceju.2022.0115reponame:Dipòsit Digital de Documents de la UABinstname:Universitat Autònoma de BarcelonaInglésengopen accesshttp://purl.org/coar/access_right/c_abf2Aquest 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.https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccessoai:ddd.uab.cat:2695752026-06-06T12:50:31Z
dc.title.none.fl_str_mv Definition of clinically insignificant residual fragments after percutaneous nephrolithotomy among urologists
a world-wide survey by EAU-YAU Endourology and Urolithiasis Working Group
title Definition of clinically insignificant residual fragments after percutaneous nephrolithotomy among urologists
spellingShingle Definition of clinically insignificant residual fragments after percutaneous nephrolithotomy among urologists
Tonyali, Senol|||0000-0003-1657-4044
Percutaneous nephrolithotomy
Survey
Clinically insignificant residual fragment
Imaging
title_short Definition of clinically insignificant residual fragments after percutaneous nephrolithotomy among urologists
title_full Definition of clinically insignificant residual fragments after percutaneous nephrolithotomy among urologists
title_fullStr Definition of clinically insignificant residual fragments after percutaneous nephrolithotomy among urologists
title_full_unstemmed Definition of clinically insignificant residual fragments after percutaneous nephrolithotomy among urologists
title_sort Definition of clinically insignificant residual fragments after percutaneous nephrolithotomy among urologists
dc.creator.none.fl_str_mv 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
author Tonyali, Senol|||0000-0003-1657-4044
author_facet 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
author_role author
author2 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
author2_role author
author
author
author
author
author
author
author
author
author
author
author
dc.contributor.none.fl_str_mv Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona
dc.subject.none.fl_str_mv Percutaneous nephrolithotomy
Survey
Clinically insignificant residual fragment
Imaging
topic Percutaneous nephrolithotomy
Survey
Clinically insignificant residual fragment
Imaging
description 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.
publishDate 2022
dc.date.none.fl_str_mv 2
2022-01-01
2022
2022-01-01
dc.type.none.fl_str_mv Article
http://purl.org/coar/resource_type/c_6501
VoR
http://purl.org/coar/version/c_970fb48d4fbd8a85
dc.type.openaire.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/article
format article
dc.identifier.none.fl_str_mv https://ddd.uab.cat/record/269575
https://dx.doi.org/urn:doi:10.5173/ceju.2022.0115
url https://ddd.uab.cat/record/269575
https://dx.doi.org/urn:doi:10.5173/ceju.2022.0115
dc.language.none.fl_str_mv Inglés
eng
language_invalid_str_mv Inglés
language eng
dc.rights.none.fl_str_mv open access
http://purl.org/coar/access_right/c_abf2
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/
dc.rights.openaire.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess
rights_invalid_str_mv open access
http://purl.org/coar/access_right/c_abf2
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/
eu_rights_str_mv openAccess
dc.format.none.fl_str_mv application/pdf
dc.source.none.fl_str_mv reponame:Dipòsit Digital de Documents de la UAB
instname:Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona
instname_str Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona
reponame_str Dipòsit Digital de Documents de la UAB
collection Dipòsit Digital de Documents de la UAB
repository.name.fl_str_mv
repository.mail.fl_str_mv
_version_ 1869425343785336832
score 15,300719

Similar Items