Decision-Making, Preference, and Treatment Choice for Asymptomatic Renal Stones—Balancing Benefit and Risk of Observation and Surgical Intervention: A Real-World Survey Using Social Media Platform

Walters, Alexander; Massella, Virginia; Pietropaolo, Amelia; Mosquera, Lucía; Somani, Bhaskar K.

doi:10.1089/end.2021.0677

Cited by 5 publications

(1 citation statement)

References 24 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Although ESWL is still a viable choic of selected stone size, the treatment options still depends on shared decision making between urologists and patients. 7 In the realm of endourological surgery, as improvements in equipment have made a smaller caliber of PCNL safer and more feasible, for example, mini-PCNL or micro-PCNL, 6,8 it has also become more controversial regarding the choice between PCNL and RIRS, especially for stones between 10 and 20 mm. Therefore, we aimed to compare these two procedures based on perioperative outcomes concerning SFR and other clinical manifestations.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparison of stone-free rate between percutaneous nephrolithotomy and retrograde intrarenal surgery

Chen

Wei

Huang

et al. 2023

Journal of the Chinese Medical Association

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: The management of urolithiasis in the kidney has been drastically changed in the era of endourology, mainly consisting of three surgical procedures: extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL), percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL), and retrograde intrarenal surgery (RIRS). Since ESWL is usually less invasive via ambulatory clinic routes, this study aimed to examine the stone-free rate (SFR) between PCNL and RIRS. Methods: We retrospectively reviewed patients who had renal stones and were treated with either PCNL or RIRS from June 2016 to June 2018. Staghorn stones, stones with diameters <1 cm, and stones with diameters >2 cm were excluded. Patients who underwent multiple surgeries for bilateral renal stones and those with graft kidney stones were excluded from the study. X-ray, sonography, and/or computed tomography (CT) were used to calculate the size of the stones. Follow-up was evaluated by the same image examination within three months after surgery. Stone-free was defined as no residual stone or the presence of asymptomatic calculi <4 mm. The operation time was defined as a skin-to-skin interval. Results: Following exclusion criteria, there were 39 patients in each arm, with no difference in age, sex, or any other demographic data. The average stone size in the PCNL and RIRS groups was 16.3 and 14.0 mm, respectively (p = 0.009). There was no significant difference in SFR (71.8% vs 61.5%, p = 0.337); the operation time was significant longer (p < 0.001), and the hospital stay was significantly shorter (p < 0.001) in the RIRS group. Conclusion: PCNL and RIRS are both feasible options for managing kidney stones. However, the initial stone size might affect the selection of operation. The SFR in the PCNL group was numerically but not statistically higher. The RIRS group, on the other hand, had a longer operation time but a shorter hospital stays.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparison of stone-free rate between percutaneous nephrolithotomy and retrograde intrarenal surgery

Chen

Wei

Huang

et al. 2023

Journal of the Chinese Medical Association

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Should we support prophylactic intervention for asymptomatic kidney stones? A retrospective cohort study with long-term follow-up

Tao

Liu

et al. 2022

Urolithiasis

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the long-term outcomes of patients undergoing prophylactic intervention or active surveillance for asymptomatic kidney stones and identify factors influencing the outcomes. In this retrospective cohort study, we reviewed the medical records of patients with asymptomatic kidney stones in two institutes between November 2014 and November 2019. Standardized questions were asked via phone calls to supplement the outcomes. Pain, hydronephrosis, stone growth, serious infection, gross hematuria, and spontaneous passage were defined as stone-related events. Future intervention was also recorded to evaluate management. A total of 101 patients with 120 kidney units were enrolled in this study. The median follow-up time was 63 months. The patients were classified into the control group (79 cases) or exposure group (41 cases) according to whether they underwent prophylactic intervention before any stone-related events. Generally, the rates of stone-related events and future intervention were significantly different between the two groups (57.0 vs. 12.2%, p < 0.001; and 31.6 vs. 4.9%, p = 0.002, respectively). After applying stabilized inverse probability of treatment weighted, Cox regression suggested that patients who underwent prophylactic intervention were less likely to experience stone-related events and future intervention (HR = 0.175, and HR = 0.028, respectively). In conclusion, patients who underwent prophylactic intervention had a lower risk of stone-related events and future intervention, although they had some slight complications.

show abstract

Patient’s preferences: an unmet need by current urolithiasis guidelines: a systematic review

Pauchard,

Ventimiglia,

Traxer

2023

World J Urol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Decision-Making, Preference, and Treatment Choice for Asymptomatic Renal Stones—Balancing Benefit and Risk of Observation and Surgical Intervention: A Real-World Survey Using Social Media Platform

Cited by 5 publications

References 24 publications

Comparison of stone-free rate between percutaneous nephrolithotomy and retrograde intrarenal surgery

Comparison of stone-free rate between percutaneous nephrolithotomy and retrograde intrarenal surgery

Should we support prophylactic intervention for asymptomatic kidney stones? A retrospective cohort study with long-term follow-up

Patient’s preferences: an unmet need by current urolithiasis guidelines: a systematic review

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About