Cargando…

Comparison among the available stone treatment techniques from the first European Association of Urology Section of Urolithiasis (EULIS) Survey: Do we have a Queen?

PURPOSE: The miniaturization of instruments has had an impact on stone management. The aims of this study were to highlight surgeon preferences among Retrograde Intra Renal Surgery (RIRS), Regular, Mini-, UltraMini- and Micro- Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy (PCNL) for urolithiasis and to compare the e...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Zanetti, Stefano Paolo, Talso, Michele, Palmisano, Franco, Longo, Fabrizio, Gallioli, Andrea, Fontana, Matteo, De Lorenzis, Elisa, Sampogna, Gianluca, Boeri, Luca, Albo, Giancarlo, Trinchieri, Alberto, Montanari, Emanuele
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Public Library of Science 2018
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6214503/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30388123
http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0205159
_version_ 1783367981090209792
author Zanetti, Stefano Paolo
Talso, Michele
Palmisano, Franco
Longo, Fabrizio
Gallioli, Andrea
Fontana, Matteo
De Lorenzis, Elisa
Sampogna, Gianluca
Boeri, Luca
Albo, Giancarlo
Trinchieri, Alberto
Montanari, Emanuele
author_facet Zanetti, Stefano Paolo
Talso, Michele
Palmisano, Franco
Longo, Fabrizio
Gallioli, Andrea
Fontana, Matteo
De Lorenzis, Elisa
Sampogna, Gianluca
Boeri, Luca
Albo, Giancarlo
Trinchieri, Alberto
Montanari, Emanuele
author_sort Zanetti, Stefano Paolo
collection PubMed
description PURPOSE: The miniaturization of instruments has had an impact on stone management. The aims of this study were to highlight surgeon preferences among Retrograde Intra Renal Surgery (RIRS), Regular, Mini-, UltraMini- and Micro- Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy (PCNL) for urolithiasis and to compare the effectiveness and safety of these techniques in a real-life setting. METHODS: A 12-item survey regarding endourological techniques was conducted through Survey Monkey among attendees of the 2013 European Association of Urology Section of Urolithiasis meeting. We asked responders to share data from the last 5 cases they performed for each technique. Procedures were stratified according to stone size and the centres’ surgical volume. Techniques were compared in terms of effectiveness and safety. Analyses were performed on the overall group and a subgroup of 1–2 cm stones. RESULTS: We collected data from a total of 420 procedures by 30, out of 78, urologists who received the survey (response rate 38%): 140 RIRS, 141 Regular-PCNL (>20 Ch), 67 Mini-PCNL (14–20 Ch), 28 UltraMini-PCNL (11–13 Ch) and 44 Micro-PCNL (4,8–8 Ch). Techniques choice was influenced by stone size and the centre’s surgical volume. Effectiveness and safety outcomes were influenced by stone size, independently of the technique. The stone-free rate was significantly lower in Micro-PCNL compared to Regular-PCNL. This was not confirmed for 1–2 cm stones. All techniques presented a lower complication rate than Regular-PCNL, with Mini-PCNL being the most protective technique compared to Regular-PCNL. CONCLUSIONS: Stone size seems to drive treatment choice. Miniaturized PCNL techniques are widely employed for 1–2 cm stones, in particular in higher surgical volume centres. Mini-PCNL and RIRS are growing in popularity for stones > 2 cm. Mini-PCNL seems to be a good compromise, being the most effective and safe procedure among PCNL techniques. RIRS is characterized by satisfactory stone-free and low complication rates.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-6214503
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2018
publisher Public Library of Science
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-62145032018-11-19 Comparison among the available stone treatment techniques from the first European Association of Urology Section of Urolithiasis (EULIS) Survey: Do we have a Queen? Zanetti, Stefano Paolo Talso, Michele Palmisano, Franco Longo, Fabrizio Gallioli, Andrea Fontana, Matteo De Lorenzis, Elisa Sampogna, Gianluca Boeri, Luca Albo, Giancarlo Trinchieri, Alberto Montanari, Emanuele PLoS One Research Article PURPOSE: The miniaturization of instruments has had an impact on stone management. The aims of this study were to highlight surgeon preferences among Retrograde Intra Renal Surgery (RIRS), Regular, Mini-, UltraMini- and Micro- Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy (PCNL) for urolithiasis and to compare the effectiveness and safety of these techniques in a real-life setting. METHODS: A 12-item survey regarding endourological techniques was conducted through Survey Monkey among attendees of the 2013 European Association of Urology Section of Urolithiasis meeting. We asked responders to share data from the last 5 cases they performed for each technique. Procedures were stratified according to stone size and the centres’ surgical volume. Techniques were compared in terms of effectiveness and safety. Analyses were performed on the overall group and a subgroup of 1–2 cm stones. RESULTS: We collected data from a total of 420 procedures by 30, out of 78, urologists who received the survey (response rate 38%): 140 RIRS, 141 Regular-PCNL (>20 Ch), 67 Mini-PCNL (14–20 Ch), 28 UltraMini-PCNL (11–13 Ch) and 44 Micro-PCNL (4,8–8 Ch). Techniques choice was influenced by stone size and the centre’s surgical volume. Effectiveness and safety outcomes were influenced by stone size, independently of the technique. The stone-free rate was significantly lower in Micro-PCNL compared to Regular-PCNL. This was not confirmed for 1–2 cm stones. All techniques presented a lower complication rate than Regular-PCNL, with Mini-PCNL being the most protective technique compared to Regular-PCNL. CONCLUSIONS: Stone size seems to drive treatment choice. Miniaturized PCNL techniques are widely employed for 1–2 cm stones, in particular in higher surgical volume centres. Mini-PCNL and RIRS are growing in popularity for stones > 2 cm. Mini-PCNL seems to be a good compromise, being the most effective and safe procedure among PCNL techniques. RIRS is characterized by satisfactory stone-free and low complication rates. Public Library of Science 2018-11-02 /pmc/articles/PMC6214503/ /pubmed/30388123 http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0205159 Text en © 2018 Zanetti et al http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
spellingShingle Research Article
Zanetti, Stefano Paolo
Talso, Michele
Palmisano, Franco
Longo, Fabrizio
Gallioli, Andrea
Fontana, Matteo
De Lorenzis, Elisa
Sampogna, Gianluca
Boeri, Luca
Albo, Giancarlo
Trinchieri, Alberto
Montanari, Emanuele
Comparison among the available stone treatment techniques from the first European Association of Urology Section of Urolithiasis (EULIS) Survey: Do we have a Queen?
title Comparison among the available stone treatment techniques from the first European Association of Urology Section of Urolithiasis (EULIS) Survey: Do we have a Queen?
title_full Comparison among the available stone treatment techniques from the first European Association of Urology Section of Urolithiasis (EULIS) Survey: Do we have a Queen?
title_fullStr Comparison among the available stone treatment techniques from the first European Association of Urology Section of Urolithiasis (EULIS) Survey: Do we have a Queen?
title_full_unstemmed Comparison among the available stone treatment techniques from the first European Association of Urology Section of Urolithiasis (EULIS) Survey: Do we have a Queen?
title_short Comparison among the available stone treatment techniques from the first European Association of Urology Section of Urolithiasis (EULIS) Survey: Do we have a Queen?
title_sort comparison among the available stone treatment techniques from the first european association of urology section of urolithiasis (eulis) survey: do we have a queen?
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6214503/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30388123
http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0205159
work_keys_str_mv AT zanettistefanopaolo comparisonamongtheavailablestonetreatmenttechniquesfromthefirsteuropeanassociationofurologysectionofurolithiasiseulissurveydowehaveaqueen
AT talsomichele comparisonamongtheavailablestonetreatmenttechniquesfromthefirsteuropeanassociationofurologysectionofurolithiasiseulissurveydowehaveaqueen
AT palmisanofranco comparisonamongtheavailablestonetreatmenttechniquesfromthefirsteuropeanassociationofurologysectionofurolithiasiseulissurveydowehaveaqueen
AT longofabrizio comparisonamongtheavailablestonetreatmenttechniquesfromthefirsteuropeanassociationofurologysectionofurolithiasiseulissurveydowehaveaqueen
AT gallioliandrea comparisonamongtheavailablestonetreatmenttechniquesfromthefirsteuropeanassociationofurologysectionofurolithiasiseulissurveydowehaveaqueen
AT fontanamatteo comparisonamongtheavailablestonetreatmenttechniquesfromthefirsteuropeanassociationofurologysectionofurolithiasiseulissurveydowehaveaqueen
AT delorenziselisa comparisonamongtheavailablestonetreatmenttechniquesfromthefirsteuropeanassociationofurologysectionofurolithiasiseulissurveydowehaveaqueen
AT sampognagianluca comparisonamongtheavailablestonetreatmenttechniquesfromthefirsteuropeanassociationofurologysectionofurolithiasiseulissurveydowehaveaqueen
AT boeriluca comparisonamongtheavailablestonetreatmenttechniquesfromthefirsteuropeanassociationofurologysectionofurolithiasiseulissurveydowehaveaqueen
AT albogiancarlo comparisonamongtheavailablestonetreatmenttechniquesfromthefirsteuropeanassociationofurologysectionofurolithiasiseulissurveydowehaveaqueen
AT trinchierialberto comparisonamongtheavailablestonetreatmenttechniquesfromthefirsteuropeanassociationofurologysectionofurolithiasiseulissurveydowehaveaqueen
AT montanariemanuele comparisonamongtheavailablestonetreatmenttechniquesfromthefirsteuropeanassociationofurologysectionofurolithiasiseulissurveydowehaveaqueen