Skip to main content
Log in

Shared decision making: why do patients choose ureteroscopy?

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

Abstract

To evaluate patient’s characteristics that affects their decision on the management of asymptomatic renal calculi, and to determine the impact of anesthetic on the selection of shockwave lithotripsy (SWL). A survey was distributed to 100 patients in our multi-disciplinary stone clinic. The patients were given a hypothetical scenario of an asymptomatic 8 mm lower pole stone and descriptions for managements options including active surveillance (annual radiography, 40 % chance of growth >10 mm within 4 years, 20 % chance of passage), SWL under conscious sedation (65 % success rate), and URS (90 % success rate, with stent placement for 1 week). Patients were asked what was the most important variable impacting the choice of treatment. Patients preferred SWL (45 %) over URS (32 %) and active surveillance (23 %). Patients with a previous experience with URS were more likely to choose it again (p = 0.0433). Decisions were driven primarily by success rate (52 %), followed by risk of complications (29 %), postoperative pain (7 %) and others (12 %). Patients choosing URS had the highest magnitude of history of pain (p = 0.03) and were more likely to prioritize success (78 %) and less likely to prioritize surgical risk (13 %) or anticipated pain after surgery (0 %) (p = 0.01). Most (85 %) of the patients would rely on the physician’s recommendation for the treatment modality. Patients place differing value on risk versus success. As they rely heavily on the physician’s recommendation, it is important that their urologist determine whether risk or success is of highest priority for them to facilitate a shared medical decision.

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

Access this article

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Preminger GM, Tiselius HG, Assimos DG et al (2007) Guideline for the management of ureteral calculi. J Urol 178:2418–2434

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Saigal CS, Joyce G, Timilsina AR (2005) Direct and indirect costs of nephrolithiasis in an employed population: opportunity for disease management? Kidney Int 68:1808–1814

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Goldsmith ZG, Lipkin ME (2012) When (and how) to surgically treat asymptomatic renal stones. Nat Rev Urol 27 9(6):315–320

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Lingeman JE, Siegel YI, Steele B, Nyhuis AW, Woods JR (1994) Management of lower pole nephrolithiasis: a critical analysis. J Urol 151:663

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Albala DM, Assimos DG, Clayman RV, Denstedt JD, Grasso M, Gutierrez-Aceves J et al (2001) Lower pole I: a prospective randomized trial of extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy and percutaneous nephrostolithotomy for lower pole nephrolithiasis—initial results. J Urol 166:2072

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Burgher A, Beman M, Monga M et al (2004) Progression of nephrolithiasis: long-term outcomes with observation of asymptomatic calculi. J Endourol 18(6):534–539

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Sarkissian C, Noble M, Monga M et al (2013) Patient decision making for asymptomatic renal calculi: balancing benefit and risk. Urology 81(2):236–240

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Joshi HB, Stainthorpe A, Keeley FX Jr et al (2001) Indwelling ureteral stents: evaluation of quality of life to aid outcome analysis. J Endourol 15:151–154

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Tiselius HG, Alken P, Buck C et al (2009) Active removal of stones in the kidney. In: Guidelines on Urolithiasis. European Association of Urology, pp 24–37.

  10. Lindhiem O, Bennett CB, Christopher J, Trentacosta et al (2014) Client preferences affect treatment satisfaction, completion, and clinical outcome: a meta-analysis. Clin Psychol Rev 34:506–517

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  11. Greenfield S, Kaplan S, Ware JE (1985) Expanding patient involvement in care: effects on patient outcomes. Ann Intern Med 102:520–528

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Szasz TS, Hollender MH (1956) A contribution to the philosophy of medicine: the basic models of the doctor–patient relationship. Arch Intern Med 97:585–592

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Strohmaier WL, Schubert G, Rosenkranz T et al (1999) Comparison of extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy and ureteroscopy in the treatment of ureteral calculi: a prospective study. Eur Urol 36(5):376–379

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Sener NC, Bas O, Sener E et al (2015) Asymptomatic lower pole small renal stones: shock wave lithotripsy, flexible ureteroscopy, or observation? A prospective randomized trial. Urology 85(1):33–37

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Keeley FX Jr, Tilling K, Elves A et al (2001) Preliminary results of a randomized controlled trial of prophylactic shock wave lithotripsy for small asymptomatic renal calyceal stones. BJU Int 87(1):1–8

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Pearle MS, Lingeman JE, Leveillee R et al (2008) Prospective randomized trial comparing shock wave lithotripsy and ureteroscopy for lower pole caliceal calculi 1 cm or less. J Urol 179(suppl 5):S69–S73

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Manoj Monga.

Ethics declarations

Funding

This study was not funded.

Conflict of interest

None.

Ethical approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee (institutional review board) and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Informed consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

Electronic supplementary material

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Omar, M., Tarplin, S., Brown, R. et al. Shared decision making: why do patients choose ureteroscopy?. Urolithiasis 44, 167–172 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00240-015-0806-0

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00240-015-0806-0

Keywords

Navigation