CONTEXT: No algorithm exists for structured follow-up of urolithiasis patients. OBJECTIVE: To provide a discharge time point during follow-up of urolithiasis patients after treatment. EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: We performed a systematic review of PubMed/Medline, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, clinicaltrials.gov, and reference lists according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses statement. Fifty studies were eligible. EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS: From a pooled analysis of 5467 stone-free patients, we estimated that for a safety margin of 80% for remaining stone free, patients should be followed up using imaging, for at least 2 yr (radiopaque stones) or 3 yr (radiolucent stones) before being discharged. Patients should be discharged after 5 yr of no recurrence with a safety margin of 90%. Regarding residual disease, patients with fragments ≤4 mm could be offered surveillance up to 4 yr since intervention rates range between 17% and 29%, disease progression between 9% and 34%, and spontaneous passage between 21% and 34% at 49 mo. Patients with larger residual fragments should be offered further definitive intervention since intervention rates are high (24-100%). Insufficient data exist for high-risk patients, but the current literature dictates that patients who are adherent to targeted medical treatment seem to experience less stone growth or regrowth of residual fragments, and may be discharged after 36-48 mo of nonprogressive disease on imaging. CONCLUSIONS: This systematic review and meta-analysis indicates that stone-free patients with radiopaque or radiolucent stones should be followed up to 2 or 3 yr, respectively. In patients with residual fragments ≤4 mm, surveillance or intervention can be advised according to patient preferences and characteristics, while for those with larger residual fragments, reintervention should be scheduled. PATIENT SUMMARY: Here, we review the literature regarding follow-up of urolithiasis patients. Patients who have no stones after treatment should be seen up to 2-3 yr, those with large fragments should be reoperated, and those with small fragments could be offered surveillance with imaging.
- MeSH
- Adult MeSH
- Humans MeSH
- Lithotripsy * adverse effects MeSH
- Follow-Up Studies MeSH
- Patient Discharge MeSH
- Urolithiasis * diagnostic imaging surgery MeSH
- Urology * MeSH
- Check Tag
- Adult MeSH
- Humans MeSH
- Publication type
- Journal Article MeSH
- Meta-Analysis MeSH
- Systematic Review MeSH
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: The aim of this review was to define patients who are at high risk of recurrence of urolithiasis, to delineate diagnostic and therapeutic algorithms for each type of stone, and to clarify general guidelines and recommendations for prevention of recurrence. METHODS: A professional research librarian carried out literature searches for all sections of the urolithiasis guidelines, covering the timeframe between 1976 and June 2023. KEY FINDINGS AND LIMITATIONS: For every patient with urolithiasis, an attempt should be made to analyse the stone. Patients should be given general instructions on how to prevent recurrence, including adequate fluid and calcium intake, and low consumption of sodium and protein. Identifying and correcting the causative factors is a cornerstone in preventing the recurrence of urolithiasis. Diagnostic and therapeutic algorithms by stone composition are available. Every patient should undergo baseline metabolic screening, while patients with calcium stones, who are at high risk of relapse and complications, should undergo extensive metabolic screening with two 24-h urine collections and should receive targeted therapy. Patients with uric acid, infection, or cystine stones are at high risk of relapse. All patients at high risk of recurrence should be closely monitored, especially those not complying with therapy in the long term. CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS: Metabolic stone evaluation and patient follow-up are highly recommended to prevent urolithiasis recurrence.
PURPOSE: We sought to determine which treatment between flexible ureteroscopy and shock wave lithotripsy has a better stone-free rate in pediatric patients (<18 years) with renal or proximal ureteric stones (<2 cm). Subanalysis for all outcomes for randomized controlled trials only. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Using PubMed, Web of Science, and the Cochrane database, we identified studies (randomized clinical trials and prospective comparative nonrandomized studies) published until August 2022 reporting surgical outcomes of pediatrics patients undergoing flexible ureteroscopy and shock wave lithotripsy with renal or proximal ureteric stones <2 cm (PROSPERO ID: CRD42022378790). Only randomized controlled trials were considered for meta-analysis. Stone-free rate, operative time, and complications were analyzed. Analysis was performed in R. RESULTS: A total of 6 studies identified, of which 3 were randomized clinical trials and 4 had data on renal stones. A total of 669 patients were analyzed. Mean age ranged from 4.4 to 12.4 years. The shock wave lithotripsy group presented a range of stone-free rate between 21 and 90% while the flexible ureteroscopy group presented a range of stone-free rates between 37% and 97%. Meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials only (n=302) demonstrated significantly higher stone-free rate in flexible ureteroscopy vs shock wave lithotripsy (RR = 1.17, 95% CI: 1.04-1.33, P = 0.01), operative time (mean difference = +16.4 minutes, 95% CI: 7.3-25.5, P < 0.01) and hospital stay (mean difference = +0.25 days, 95% CI: 0.14-0.36, P < 0.001). But no difference in fluoroscopy exposure time (mean difference = -21.0 seconds, 95% CI: -42.6 to 0.56, P = 0.07), Clavien I-II (RR = 1.23, 95% CI: 0.71-2.12, P = 0.45) or Clavien III-V complications (RR = 1.04, 95% CI: 0.32-3.42, P = 0.95). CONCLUSIONS: Flexible ureteroscopy has a significantly higher stone-free rate than shock wave lithotripsy, with no difference in complication rate or fluoroscopy exposure time, and significantly higher operative times and hospital stay. However, the current evidence base for this is weak and further randomized trials are needed.
- MeSH
- Child MeSH
- Ureteral Calculi * therapy MeSH
- Kidney Calculi * therapy etiology MeSH
- Humans MeSH
- Lithotripsy * adverse effects MeSH
- Urinary Calculi * etiology MeSH
- Child, Preschool MeSH
- Prospective Studies MeSH
- Ureteroscopy adverse effects MeSH
- Urology * MeSH
- Treatment Outcome MeSH
- Check Tag
- Child MeSH
- Humans MeSH
- Child, Preschool MeSH
- Publication type
- Journal Article MeSH
- Meta-Analysis MeSH
- Systematic Review MeSH
PURPOSE: The European Association of Urology (EAU) has updated its guidelines on clinical best practice in urolithiasis for 2021. We therefore aimed to present a summary of best clinical practice in surgical intervention for patients with upper tract urolithiasis. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The panel performed a comprehensive literature review of novel data up to May 2021. The guidelines were updated and a strength rating was given for each recommendation, graded using the modified Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluations methodology. RESULTS: The choice of surgical intervention depends on stone characteristics, patient anatomy, comorbidities, and choice. For shockwave lithotripsy (SWL), the optimal shock frequency is 1.0-1.5 Hz. For ureteroscopy (URS), a postoperative stent is not needed in uncomplicated cases. Flexible URS is an alternative if percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL) or SWL is contraindicated, even for stones >2 cm. For PCNL, prone and supine approaches are equally safe. For uncomplicated PCNL cases, a nephrostomy tube after PCNL is not necessary. Radiation exposure for endourological procedures should follow the as low as reasonably achievable principles. CONCLUSIONS: This is a summary of the EAU urolithiasis guidelines on best clinical practice in interventional management of urolithiasis. The full guideline is available at https://uroweb.org/guidelines/urolithiasis. PATIENT SUMMARY: The European Association of Urology has produced guidelines on the best management of kidney stones, which are summarised in this paper. Kidney stone disease is a common condition; computed tomography (CT) is increasingly used to diagnose it. The guidelines aim to decrease radiation exposure to patients by minimising the use of x-rays and CT scans. We detail specific advice around the common operations for kidney stones.
- MeSH
- Kidney Calculi * surgery complications MeSH
- Humans MeSH
- Nephrostomy, Percutaneous * methods MeSH
- Ureteroscopy methods MeSH
- Urolithiasis * surgery complications MeSH
- Urology * MeSH
- Check Tag
- Humans MeSH
- Publication type
- Review MeSH
- Practice Guideline MeSH
CONTEXT: Endourological procedures frequently require fluoroscopic guidance, which results in harmful radiation exposure to patients and staff. One clinician-controlled method for decreasing exposure to ionising radiation in patients with urolithiasis is to avoid the use of intraoperative fluoroscopy during stone intervention procedures. OBJECTIVE: To comparatively assess the benefits and risks of "fluoroscopy-free" and fluoroscopic endourological interventions in patients with urolithiasis. EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: A systematic review of the literature from 1970 to 2022 was performed using the MEDLINE/PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane controlled trials databases and ClinicalTrials.gov. Primary outcomes assessed were complications and the stone-free rate (SFR). Studies reporting data on ureteroscopy and percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL) were eligible for inclusion. Secondary outcomes were operative duration, hospital length of stay, conversion from a fluoroscopy-free to a fluoroscopic procedure, and requirement for an auxiliary procedure to achieve stone clearance. EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS: In total, 24 studies (12 randomised and 12 observational) out of 834 abstracts screened were eligible for analysis. There were 4564 patients with urolithiasis in total, of whom 2309 underwent a fluoroscopy-free procedure and 2255 underwent a comparative fluoroscopic procedure for treatment of urolithiasis. Pooled analysis of all procedures revealed no significant difference between the groups in SFR (p = 0.84), operative duration (p = 0.11), or length of stay (p = 0.13). Complication rates were significantly higher in the fluoroscopy group (p = 0.009). The incidence of conversion from a fluoroscopy-free to a fluoroscopic procedure was 2.84%. Similar results were noted in subanalyses for ureteroscopy (n = 2647) and PCNL (n = 1917). When only randomised studies were analysed (n = 12), the overall complication rate was significantly in the fluoroscopy group (p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: For carefully selected patients with urolithiasis, fluoroscopy-free and fluoroscopic endourological procedures have comparable stone-free and complication rates when performed by experienced urologists. In addition, the conversion rate from a fluoroscopy-free to a fluoroscopic endourological procedure is low at 2.84%. These findings are important for clinicians and patients, as the detrimental health effects of ionising radiation are negated with fluoroscopy-free procedures. PATIENT SUMMARY: We compared treatments for kidney stones with and without the use of radiation. We found that kidney stone procedures without the use of radiation can be safely performed by experienced urologists in patients with normal kidney anatomy. These findings are important, as they indicate that the harmful effects of radiation can be avoided during kidney stone surgery.
- MeSH
- Fluoroscopy MeSH
- Kidney Calculi * surgery MeSH
- Humans MeSH
- Urolithiasis * surgery MeSH
- Urology * MeSH
- Treatment Outcome MeSH
- Check Tag
- Humans MeSH
- Publication type
- Journal Article MeSH
- Review MeSH
- Systematic Review MeSH
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Stone size has traditionally been measured in one dimension. This is reflected in most of the literature and in the EAU guidelines. However, recent studies have shown that multidimensional measures provide better prediction of outcomes. METHODS: We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of the prognostic accuracy of measures of stone size (PROSPERO reference CRD42022346967). We considered all studies reporting prognostic accuracy statistics on any intervention for kidney stones (extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy [ESWL], ureterorenoscopy [URS], or percutaneous nephrolithotomy [PCNL]; Population) using multiplane measurements of stone burden (area in mm2 or volume in mm3; Intervention) in comparison to single-plane measurements of stone burden (size in mm; Intervention) for the study-defined stone-free rate (Outcome) in a PICO-framed question. We also assessed complication rates (overall and by Clavien-Dindo grade) and the operative time as secondary outcomes. Searches were made between 1970 and August 2023. We used the DeLong method to compare receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves. KEY FINDINGS AND LIMITATIONS: Of 24 studies included in the review, 12 were eligible for comparative analysis with the DeLong test following meta-analysis of prognostic accuracy. For prediction of stone-free status, the area under the ROC curve (AUC) was significantly higher for stone volume than for stone size (0.71 vs 0.67; p < 0.001). Subanalyses confirmed this for ESWL and URS, but not for PCNL. For URS, the AUC was also significantly higher for stone area than for stone size (0.79 vs 0.77; p < 0.001). Throughout all analyses, there was no difference in AUC between stone area and stone volume. There was high risk of bias for all analyses apart from the URS subanalyses. CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS: According to the limited data currently available, stone-free rates are predicted with significantly higher accuracy using multidimensional measures of stone burden in comparison to a single linear measurement. PATIENT SUMMARY: We reviewed different ways of measuring the size of stones in the kidney or urinary tract and compared their accuracy in predicting stone-free rates after treatment. We found that measurement of the stone area (2 dimensions) or stone volume (3 dimensions) is better than stone diameter (1 dimension) in predicting stone-free status after treatment.
- Publication type
- Journal Article MeSH
- Review MeSH
BACKGROUND: The European School of Urology (ESU) and EAU Section of Uro-Technology (ESUT) started hands-on-training (HOT) sessions in 2007 along with structured European Basic Laparoscopic Urological Skills (EBLUS) examinations in 2013. EBLUS includes an online theoretical course, HOT by expert tutors on a set of dry-lab exercises, and finally a standardised examination for skill assessment and certification. OBJECTIVE: To analyse the results and predictors of success from the EBLUS examinations that were conducted during the European Urology Residents Education Programme (EUREP) and other international and national dedicated ESU events. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: ESU has been delivering EBLUS courses and examinations over the past 6 yr (2013-2018) in more than 40 countries worldwide. Trainees were asked about their laparoscopic background (procedures assisted/performed) and about the availability of HOT or simulator/box trainer in their facility. Apart from the online theoretical course, 4 HOT tasks [(1) peg transfer, (2) pattern cutting, (3) single knot tying, and (4) clip and cut] with its quality assessment of depth perception, bimanual dexterity, and efficiency were a part of the assessment and were considered critical to pass the EBLUS examination. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: A total of 875 EBLUS examinations were delivered (EUREP, n=385; other ESU events, n=490), with complete data available for 533 (61%) participants among which 295 (55%) passed the examinations. Pass rate increased on a yearly basis from 35% to 70% (p<0.001) and was similar between EUREP (56%) and other ESU/ESUT events (55%). The significant predictors of success were passing tasks 1 [odds ratio (OR): 869.9, 95% confidence interval (CI): 89.6-8449.0, p<0.001] and 2 (OR: 3045.0, 95% CI: 99.2-93 516.2, p<0.001) of the examinations. A limitation of EBLUS was its inability to provide more advanced training such as wet-lab or cadaveric training. CONCLUSIONS: Over the past few years more trainees have passed the European Basic Laparoscopic Urological Skills (EBLUS) examinations. Trainees who spend more time on laparoscopic procedures demonstrated a better performance and pass rate. We found almost no difference between the EBLUS results collected from EUREP and other ESU/ESUT events, which confirms the robustness of the training and examinations conducted worldwide. PATIENT SUMMARY: Training in laparoscopy helps trainees pass the European Basic Laparoscopic Urological Skills (EBLUS) examinations, reflected by an increase in the pass rate over the past 6 yr. Our results also confirm the robustness of EBLUS training and examinations worldwide.
- MeSH
- Biomedical Technology education MeSH
- Time Factors MeSH
- Clinical Competence * MeSH
- Laparoscopy education MeSH
- Humans MeSH
- Schools, Medical MeSH
- Urologic Surgical Procedures education MeSH
- Urology education MeSH
- Educational Measurement * MeSH
- Check Tag
- Humans MeSH
- Publication type
- Journal Article MeSH
- Geographicals
- Europe MeSH
BACKGROUND: The European School of Urology (ESU) started the European Urology Residents Education Programme (EUREP) in 2003 for final year urology residents, with hands-on training (HOT) added later in 2007. OBJECTIVE: To assess the geographical reach of EUREP, trainee demographics, and individual quality feedback in relation to annual methodology improvements in HOT. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: From September 2014 to October 2017 (four EUREP courses) several new features have been applied to the HOT format of the EUREP course: 1:1 training sessions (2015), fixed 60-min time slots (2016), and standardised teaching methodology (2017). The resulting EUREP HOT format was verified by collecting and prospectively analysing the following data: total number of participants attending different HOT courses; participants' age; country of origin; and feedback obtained annually. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: A total of 796 participants from 54 countries participated in 1450 HOT sessions over the last 4 yr. This included 294 (20%) ureteroscopy (URS) sessions, 237 (16.5%) transurethral resection (TUR) sessions, 840 (58%) basic laparoscopic sessions, and 79 (5.5%) intermediate laparoscopic sessions. While 712 residents (89%) were from Europe, 84 (11%) were from non-European nations. Of the European residents, most came from Italy (16%), Germany (15%), Spain (15%), and Romania (8%). Feedback for the basic laparoscopic session showed a constant improvement in scores over the last 4 yr, with the highest scores achieved last year. This included feedback on improvements in tutor rating (p=0.017), organisation (p<0.001), and personal experience with EUREP (p<0.001). Limitations lie in the difficulties associated with the use of an advanced training curriculum with wet laboratory or cadaveric courses in this format, although these could be performed in other training centres in conjunction with EUREP. CONCLUSIONS: The EUREP trainee demographics show that the purpose of the course is being achieved, with excellent feedback reported. While European trainees dominate the demographics, participation from a number of non-European countries suggests continued ESU collaboration with other national societies and wider dissemination of simulation training worldwide. PATIENT SUMMARY: In this paper we look at methodological improvements and feedback for the European Urology Residents Education Programme hands-on-training over the last 4 yr.
- MeSH
- Adult MeSH
- Clinical Competence statistics & numerical data MeSH
- Curriculum statistics & numerical data MeSH
- Internship and Residency standards MeSH
- Laparoscopy education MeSH
- Middle Aged MeSH
- Humans MeSH
- Cadaver MeSH
- Transurethral Resection of Prostate education MeSH
- Simulation Training methods MeSH
- Ureteroscopy education MeSH
- Urologic Surgical Procedures education MeSH
- Urology education MeSH
- Check Tag
- Adult MeSH
- Middle Aged MeSH
- Humans MeSH
- Publication type
- Journal Article MeSH
- Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't MeSH
- Geographicals
- Europe MeSH
- Italy MeSH
- Germany MeSH
- Romania MeSH
- Spain MeSH
... močoviny podle MacLeana 62 -- Funkce ureosekretorická podle zkoušky fenolsulfonfthalei nové (Rowntree a Geraghty ... ... Zkouška fenolsulfonfthaleinem (Rowntree a Geraghty) 76 -- III. ... ... Ginzburgova -- Titrace podle Toptera -- Titrace podle Michaelise -- Titrace podle Kellinga -- Titrace podle Robina ...
xix, 364 s., [1] s. obr. příl. : il., tab. ; 21 cm
- MeSH
- Gastrointestinal Tract physiology physiopathology MeSH
- Kidney physiology physiopathology MeSH
- Digestive System Physiological Phenomena MeSH
- Kidney Function Tests MeSH
- Publication type
- Monograph MeSH
- Conspectus
- Patologie. Klinická medicína
- NML Fields
- gastroenterologie
- nefrologie
