Advertisement

Urolithiasis

, Volume 42, Issue 4, pp 329–334 | Cite as

Use of flexible ureteroscopy in the clinical practice for the treatment of renal stones: results from a large European survey conducted by the EAU Young Academic Urologists-Working Party on Endourology and Urolithiasis

  • F. Sanguedolce
  • E. Liatsikos
  • P. Verze
  • S. Hruby
  • A. Breda
  • J. D. Beatty
  • T. Knoll
  • EAU Young Academic Urologists Group, Arnhem, The Netherlands
Original Paper

Abstract

Treatment of renal stones using flexible ureteroscopy (fURS) is increasingly common despite the poor evidence in literature supporting its use and indications. With this study, we wanted to investigate the current use and indication of fURS for the treatment of renal stones in the clinical practice across the European countries. A survey was conducted using an emailed questionnaire consisting of 21 items; 2,894 recipients were selected via the EAU membership database. The questionnaires were collected through the SurveyMonkey system and the data were processed with the SPSS statistical package. Frequencies, cross tabs and Pearson correlation coefficients were applied as appropriate. 1,168 questionnaires were collected (response rate 40.4 %). fURS was performed in 72.9 % of the respondents’ institutions, and 54.2 % of the respondents were performing the procedure. For 95 % of the users, fURS was considered first-line treatment, for stone of lower pole stone (45.9 %) and <1 cm (44.2 %) and 2 cm (43.8 %) in size. The ureteral access sheaths were used routinely by more than 70 % of the respondents. Lower pole stone repositioning technique was routinely performed by 45.9 % of the surgeons. After fragmentation, 47.2 % of the responders preferred to retrieve only the bigger fragments. At the end of fURS, lower volume surgeons were more likely to place routinely a double-J stent (p = 0.001). Higher volume surgeons estimated a higher durability of devices, both optical and digital ones (p < 0.001), and were more prone to consider fURS cost-effective when compared to other treatment modalities (p < 0.001). fURS is widely used for the treatment of renal stones and its use and indication can vary according to the age and surgeons’ case volume. Higher volume surgeons are more prompt to extend international guidelines indications and to consider the technology cost-effective.

Keywords

Renal stones Flexible ureteroscopy Survey Guidelines 

References

  1. 1.
    Breda A, Ogunyemi O, Leppert JT et al (2009) Flexible ureteroscopy and laser lithotripsy for multiple unilateral intrarenal stones. Eur Urol 55:1190PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Takazawa R, Kitayama S, Tsujii T (2012) Single-session ureteroscopy with holmium laser lithotripsy for multiple stones. Int J Urol 19:1118PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Breda A, Ogunyemi O, Leppert JT et al (2008) Flexible ureteroscopy and laser lithotripsy for single intrarenal stones 2 cm or greater—is this the new frontier? J Urol 179:981PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Cohen J, Cohen S, Grasso M (2013) Ureteropyeloscopic treatment of large complex intrarenal and proximal ureteral calculi. BJU Int 111:E127PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Hyams ES, Munver R, Bird VG et al (2010) Flexible ureterorenoscopy and holmium laser lithotripsy for the management of renal stone burdens that measure 2 to 3 cm: a multi-institutional experience. J Endourol 24:1583PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Riley JM, Stearman L, Troxel S (2009) Retrograde ureteroscopy for renal stones larger than 2.5 cm. J Endourol 23:1395PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Takazawa R, Kitayama S, Tsujii T (2012) Successful outcome of flexible ureteroscopy with holmium laser lithotripsy for renal stones 2 cm or greater. Int J Urol 19:264PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Aboumarzouk OM, Monga M, Kata SG et al (2012) Flexible ureteroscopy and laser lithotripsy for stones >2 cm: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Endourol 26:1257PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Kelley K, Clark B, Brown V et al (2003) Good practice in the conduct and reporting of survey research. Int J Qual Health Care 15:261PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Tiselius H-G, A D, Alken P, Buck C, Conort P, Gallucci M, Knoll T (2006) : European Association of Urology (EAU) guidelines on urolithiasis. In: EAU guidelines, edition presented at the 21st EAU Annual Congress, Paris, ISBN 978-90-79754-70-0Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Turk C, K T, Petrik A, Sarica K, Skolarikos A, Straub M, Seitz C (2013) : European Association of Urology (EAU) guidelines on urolithiasis. In: EAU guidelines, edition presented at the 28th EAU Annual Congress, Milan, ISBN 978-90-79754-71-7Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Grasso M, Ficazzola M (1999) Retrograde ureteropyeloscopy for lower pole caliceal calculi. J Urol 162:1904PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Hollenbeck BK, Schuster TG, Faerber GJ et al (2001) Flexible ureteroscopy in conjunction with in situ lithotripsy for lower pole calculi. Urology 58:859PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Chung BI, Aron M, Hegarty NJ et al (2008) Ureteroscopic versus percutaneous treatment for medium-size (1-2-cm) renal calculi. J Endourol 22:343PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Dickstein RJ, Kreshover JE, Babayan RK et al (2010) Is a safety wire necessary during routine flexible ureteroscopy? J Endourol 24:1589PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Auge BK, Pietrow PK, Lallas CD et al (2004) Ureteral access sheath provides protection against elevated renal pressures during routine flexible ureteroscopic stone manipulation. J Endourol 18:33PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Delvecchio FC, Auge BK, Brizuela RM et al (2003) Assessment of stricture formation with the ureteral access sheath. Urology 61:518PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Wein AJ, Kavoussi LR, Novick AC, Partin AW, Peters CA (2012) Campbell–Walsh Urology, 10th edn. Elsevier, PhiladelphiaGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Kourambas J, Delvecchio FC, Munver R et al (2000) Nitinol stone retrieval-assisted ureteroscopic management of lower pole renal calculi. Urology 56:935PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Schatloff O, Lindner U, Ramon J et al (2010) Randomized trial of stone fragment active retrieval versus spontaneous passage during holmium laser lithotripsy for ureteral stones. J Urol 183:1031PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Haleblian G, Kijvikai K, de la Rosette J et al (2008) Ureteral stenting and urinary stone management: a systematic review. J Urol 179:424PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Auge BK, Sarvis JA, L’Esperance JO (2007) Practice patterns of ureteral stenting after routine ureteroscopic stone surgery: a survey of practicing urologists. J Endourol 21:1287PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Knudsen B, Miyaoka R, Shah K et al (2010) Durability of the next-generation flexible fiberoptic ureteroscopes: a randomized prospective multi-institutional clinical trial. Urology 75:534PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Traxer O, Dubosq F, Jamali K et al (2006) New-generation flexible ureterorenoscopes are more durable than previous ones. Urology 68:276PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Springer A, Krois W, Horcher E (2011) Trends in hypospadias surgery: results of a worldwide survey. Eur Urol 60:1184PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Satkunasivam R, Keays M, Pace KT (2011) Renal colic and urolithiasis practice patterns in Canada: a survey of Canadian Urological Association members. Can Urol Assoc J 5:324PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • F. Sanguedolce
    • 1
    • 5
  • E. Liatsikos
    • 2
  • P. Verze
    • 3
  • S. Hruby
    • 4
  • A. Breda
    • 5
  • J. D. Beatty
    • 6
  • T. Knoll
    • 7
  • EAU Young Academic Urologists Group, Arnhem, The Netherlands
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of UrologyKing’s College Hospital, NHS Foundation TrustLondonUK
  2. 2.Department of UrologyPatras UniversityPatrasGreece
  3. 3.University of Naples-Federico IINaplesItaly
  4. 4.Department of UrologyParacelsus Medical University SalzburgSalzburgAustria
  5. 5.Department of UrologyFundació PuigvertBarcelonaSpain
  6. 6.Department of UrologyNorthampton General HospitalNorthamptonUK
  7. 7.Department of UrologyKlinikum Sindelfingen-Boblingen University of TübingenSindelfingenGermany

Personalised recommendations