• Je něco špatně v tomto záznamu ?

EAU Guidelines on Interventional Treatment for Urolithiasis

C. Türk, A. Petřík, K. Sarica, C. Seitz, A. Skolarikos, M. Straub, T. Knoll,

. 2016 ; 69 (3) : 475-82. [pub] 20150904

Jazyk angličtina Země Švýcarsko

Typ dokumentu časopisecké články, směrnice pro lékařskou praxi, přehledy

Perzistentní odkaz   https://www.medvik.cz/link/bmc17001020

CONTEXT: Management of urinary stones is a major issue for most urologists. Treatment modalities are minimally invasive and include extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy (SWL), ureteroscopy (URS), and percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PNL). Technological advances and changing treatment patterns have had an impact on current treatment recommendations, which have clearly shifted towards endourologic procedures. These guidelines describe recent recommendations on treatment indications and the choice of modality for ureteral and renal calculi. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the optimal measures for treatment of urinary stone disease. EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: Several databases were searched to identify studies on interventional treatment of urolithiasis, with special attention to the level of evidence. EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS: Treatment decisions are made individually according to stone size, location, and (if known) composition, as well as patient preference and local expertise. Treatment recommendations have shifted to endourologic procedures such as URS and PNL, and SWL has lost its place as the first-line modality for many indications despite its proven efficacy. Open and laparoscopic techniques are restricted to limited indications. Best clinical practice standards have been established for all treatments, making all options minimally invasive with low complication rates. CONCLUSION: Active treatment of urolithiasis is currently a minimally invasive intervention, with preference for endourologic techniques. PATIENT SUMMARY: For active removal of stones from the kidney or ureter, technological advances have made it possible to use less invasive surgical techniques. These interventions are safe and are generally associated with shorter recovery times and less discomfort for the patient.

Citace poskytuje Crossref.org

000      
00000naa a2200000 a 4500
001      
bmc17001020
003      
CZ-PrNML
005      
20170113115102.0
007      
ta
008      
170103s2016 sz f 000 0|eng||
009      
AR
024    7_
$a 10.1016/j.eururo.2015.07.041 $2 doi
024    7_
$a 10.1016/j.eururo.2015.07.041 $2 doi
035    __
$a (PubMed)26344917
040    __
$a ABA008 $b cze $d ABA008 $e AACR2
041    0_
$a eng
044    __
$a sz
100    1_
$a Türk, Christian $u Department of Urology, Rudolfstiftung Hospital, Vienna, Austria.
245    10
$a EAU Guidelines on Interventional Treatment for Urolithiasis / $c C. Türk, A. Petřík, K. Sarica, C. Seitz, A. Skolarikos, M. Straub, T. Knoll,
520    9_
$a CONTEXT: Management of urinary stones is a major issue for most urologists. Treatment modalities are minimally invasive and include extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy (SWL), ureteroscopy (URS), and percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PNL). Technological advances and changing treatment patterns have had an impact on current treatment recommendations, which have clearly shifted towards endourologic procedures. These guidelines describe recent recommendations on treatment indications and the choice of modality for ureteral and renal calculi. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the optimal measures for treatment of urinary stone disease. EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: Several databases were searched to identify studies on interventional treatment of urolithiasis, with special attention to the level of evidence. EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS: Treatment decisions are made individually according to stone size, location, and (if known) composition, as well as patient preference and local expertise. Treatment recommendations have shifted to endourologic procedures such as URS and PNL, and SWL has lost its place as the first-line modality for many indications despite its proven efficacy. Open and laparoscopic techniques are restricted to limited indications. Best clinical practice standards have been established for all treatments, making all options minimally invasive with low complication rates. CONCLUSION: Active treatment of urolithiasis is currently a minimally invasive intervention, with preference for endourologic techniques. PATIENT SUMMARY: For active removal of stones from the kidney or ureter, technological advances have made it possible to use less invasive surgical techniques. These interventions are safe and are generally associated with shorter recovery times and less discomfort for the patient.
650    _2
$a lidé $7 D006801
650    _2
$a laparoskopie $x normy $7 D010535
650    _2
$a litotripse $x normy $7 D008096
650    _2
$a perkutánní nefrostomie $x normy $7 D009403
650    _2
$a pooperační komplikace $x etiologie $7 D011183
650    _2
$a rizikové faktory $7 D012307
650    _2
$a stenty $7 D015607
650    _2
$a výsledek terapie $7 D016896
650    _2
$a ureteroskopie $x normy $7 D018666
650    _2
$a katetrizace močového měchýře $x normy $7 D014546
650    _2
$a urolitiáza $x diagnóza $x chirurgie $7 D052878
650    _2
$a urologické chirurgické výkony $x škodlivé účinky $x přístrojové vybavení $x normy $7 D013520
650    _2
$a urologie $x normy $7 D014572
655    _2
$a časopisecké články $7 D016428
655    _2
$a směrnice pro lékařskou praxi $7 D017065
655    _2
$a přehledy $7 D016454
700    1_
$a Petřík, Aleš $u Department of Urology, Region Hospital, České Budějovice, Czech Republic; Department of Urology, First Faculty of Medicine, Charles University in Prague, Prague, Czech Republic.
700    1_
$a Sarica, Kemal $u Department of Urology, Dr. Lutfi Kirdar Kartal Research and Training Hospital, Istanbul, Turkey.
700    1_
$a Seitz, Christian $u Department of Urology, Medical University Vienna, Austria.
700    1_
$a Skolarikos, Andreas $u Second Department of Urology, Sismanoglio Hospital, Athens Medical School, Athens, Greece.
700    1_
$a Straub, Michael $u Department of Urology, Technical University Munich, Munich, Germany.
700    1_
$a Knoll, Thomas $u Department of Urology, Sindelfingen-Böblingen Medical Centre, University of Tübingen, Sindelfingen, Germany. Electronic address: t.knoll@klinikverbund-suedwest.de.
773    0_
$w MED00001669 $t European urology $x 1873-7560 $g Roč. 69, č. 3 (2016), s. 475-82
856    41
$u https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26344917 $y Pubmed
910    __
$a ABA008 $b sig $c sign $y a $z 0
990    __
$a 20170103 $b ABA008
991    __
$a 20170113115203 $b ABA008
999    __
$a ok $b bmc $g 1180160 $s 961587
BAS    __
$a 3
BAS    __
$a PreBMC
BMC    __
$a 2016 $b 69 $c 3 $d 475-82 $e 20150904 $i 1873-7560 $m European urology $n Eur Urol $x MED00001669
LZP    __
$a Pubmed-20170103

Najít záznam

Citační ukazatele

Možnosti archivace