Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Is health-related quality of life of patients after single-use flexible ureteroscopy superior to extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy? A randomised prospective study

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Urolithiasis Aims and scope Submit manuscript

A Correction to this article was published on 05 January 2021

This article has been updated

Abstract

The aims of the study were to compare the change in the Wisconsin Stone Quality of Life (WISQOL) score in patients who underwent retrograde intrarenal surgery (RIRS) single-use ureteroscope or extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL) with a calculation of quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). 158 patients treated with urinary stone disease were randomly divided into 80 patients in the validation and 78 patients in the intervention arm. Patients in the intervention arm were randomly divided into the RIRS or the ESWL group. Linguistic validation of the WISQOL into the Slovak language was performed using a standardised multistep process. Discriminant validity was assessed by comparing stone-forming patients to an additional 34 healthy individuals. Patients were asked to fill in the WISQOL before and in the 24th week after the intervention. The QALYs were calculated by the formula QALY = weight factor (WF) x time period after intervention. The Cronbach’s α of the WISQOL was 0.94, the Pearson’s coefficient for test–retest reliability was 0.91, and the discriminant validity confirmed a higher score for healthy individuals (p < 0.001). The median WISQOL score changed from 45.5 to 95.5 vs. 33.9 to 87.1 in the RIRS and ESWL groups, respectively (p < 0.001). Patients from the RIRS group had a good possibility of reaching 19.727 QALYs gained during life expectancy compared to 15.780 for the ESWL group (p < 0.001). RIRS single-use ureteroscope is significantly superior to ESWL in reaching more QALYs gained during life expectancy. The WISQOL Slovak version is valid, reliable and strictly specific for stone-forming patients.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

Change history

References

  1. New F, Somani BK (2016) A complete world literature review of quality of life (QOL) in patients with kidney stone disease (KSD). Curr Urol Rep 17(12):88

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Penniston KL, Antonelli JA, Viprakasit DP, Averch TD, Sivalingam S, Sur RL, Pais VM Jr, Chew BH, Bird VG, Nakada SY (2017) Validation and reliability of the Wisconsin stone quality of life questionnaire. J Urol 197(5):1280–1288

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Atalay HA, Ulker V, Canat L, Murat O, Can O, Penniston KL (2018) Validation of the Turkish version of the Wisconsin stone-quality of life questionnaire. Turk J Urol 45(2):118–123

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Basulto-Martínez M, Olvera-Posada D, Velueta-Martínez IA, Méndez-Probst C, Flores-Tapia JP, Penniston K, Guerrero-Putz MD, Heinze A (2020) Quality of life in patients with kidney stones: translation and validation of the Spanish Wisconsin Stone Quality of Life Questionnaire. Urolithiasis 48(5):419–424

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Marseille E, Larson B, Kazi DS, Kahn JG, Rosen S (2015) Thresholds for the cost-effectiveness of interventions: alternative approaches. Bull World Health Organ 93(2):118–124

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Alken P (2018) Intracorporeal lithotripsy. Urolithiasis 46(1):19–29

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Geraghty RM, Jones P, Herrmann TRW, Aboumarzouk O, Somani BK (2018) Ureteroscopy is more cost effective than shock wave lithotripsy for stone treatment: systematic review and meta-analysis. World J Urol 36(11):1783–1793

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Hutchinson A, Bentzen N, König-Zahn C (1996) Cross-cultural health outcome assessment: a user’s guide. European Research Group on Health Outcomes, Ruinen

    Google Scholar 

  9. Statistical Office of the Slovak Republic (2020) Statistiky—Demografia a socialne statistiky—Obyvatelstvo a migracia—Ukazovatele—Tabulky zivota—Zdrave roky zivota podla EU SILC, 2005–2018 (in Slovak language). http://datacube.statistics.sk/#!/view/sk/VBD_SLOVSTAT/om2021rs/v_om2021rs_00_00_00_sk Accessed 14 Mar 2020

  10. Hesse A, Brändle E, Wilbert D, Köhrmann KU, Alken P (2003) Study on the prevalence and incidence of urolithiasis in Germany comparing the years 1979 vs. 2000. Eur Urol 44(6):709–713

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Stamatelou KK, Francis ME, Jones CA, Nyberg LM, Curhan GC (2003) Time trends in reported prevalence of kidney stones in the United States: 1976–1994. Kidney Int 63(5):1817–1823

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Angell J, Bryant M, Tu H, Goodman M, Pattaras J, Ogan K (2012) Association of depression and urolithiasis. Urology 79(3):518–525

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. El-Nahas AR, Ibrahim HM, Youssef RF, Sheir KZ (2012) Flexible ureterorenoscopy versus extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy for treatment of lower pole stones of 10–20 mm. BJU Int 110(6):898–902

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Fankhauser ChD, Hermanns T, Lieger L, Diethelm O, Umbehr M, Luginbuhl T, Sulser T, Muntener M, Poyet C (2018) Extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy versus flexible ureterorenoscopy in the treatment of untreated renal calculi. Clin Kidney J 11(3):364–369

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Desai M, Sun Y, Buchholz N, Fuller A, Matsuda T, Matlaga B, Miller N, Bolton D, Alomar M, Ganpule A (2017) Treatment selection for urolithiasis: percutaneous nephrolithotomy, ureteroscopy, shock wave lithotripsy, and active monitoring. World J Urol 35(9):1395–1399

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Shen P, Jiang M, Yang J, Li X, Li Y, Wei W, Dai Y, Zeng H, Wang J (2011) Use of ureteral stent in extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy for upper urinary calculi: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Urol 186(4):1328–1335

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Clinic of Urology, University Hospital Martin, Kollarova 2, 036 59, Martin, Slovakia

    Jan Svihra Jr., Igor Sopilko & Jan Luptak

  2. Urology Clinic of the Faculty Hospital Olomouc, Faculty of Medicine and Dentistry, Palacký University Olomouc, Hněvotínská 3, 775 15, Olomouc, Czech Republic

    Jan Svihra Jr. & Vladimir Student

  3. Department of Public Health, Jessenius Faculty of Medicine in Martin, Comenius University Bratislava, Mala Hora 11149/4B, 036 01, Martin, Slovakia

    Viera Svihrova

  4. Clinic of Urology, Jessenius Faculty of Medicine in Martin, Comenius University Bratislava, Mala Hora 4A, 036 01, Martin, Slovakia

    Jan Luptak

Authors
  1. Jan Svihra Jr.
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Igor Sopilko
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Viera Svihrova
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Vladimir Student
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Jan Luptak
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

JS: ideas; project development; responsible for validation of the questionnaire and progression of the study; data collection; data analysis; manuscript writing and approving the final version; IS: data collection; progression of the study; supervision; manuscript editing and approving the final version; VSv: responsible for validation of the questionnaire; data analysis; manuscript editing and approving the final version; VSt: responsible for progression of the study; manuscript editing and approving the final version; JL: responsible for progression of the study; supervision; manuscript editing and approving the final version. All authors contributed to the study conception and design. Material preparation, data collection and analysis were performed by JS, IS, VS, VS and JL. The first draft of the manuscript was written by JS and all authors commented on previous versions of the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Viera Svihrova.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest. The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.

Ethical approval

The study was approved by the ethics committee of University Hospital Martin under the protocol number EK UNM 47/2020. Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study. The procedures used in this study adhere to the tenets of the Declaration of Helsinki.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

The original online version of this article was revised: Given name and family name were changed.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Svihra, J., Sopilko, I., Svihrova, V. et al. Is health-related quality of life of patients after single-use flexible ureteroscopy superior to extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy? A randomised prospective study. Urolithiasis 49, 73–79 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00240-020-01224-4

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00240-020-01224-4

Keywords

Search

Navigation