World journal of urology · 2022
Emergency upper urinary tract decompression: double-J stent or nephrostomy? A European YAU/ESUT/EULIS/BSIR survey among urologists and radiologists.
СтатьяОбзорНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Pietropaolo Amelia, Seoane Lucia Mosquera, Abadia Amad Abu-Suboh, Geraghty Robert, Kallidonis Panagiotis, Tailly Thomas, Modi Sachin, Tzelves Lazaros, Sarica Kemal, Gozen Ali, Emiliani Esteban, Sener Emre, Rai Bhavan Prasad, Hameed Zeeshan B M, Liatsikos Evangelos, Rivas Juan Gomes, Skolarikos Andreas, Somani Bhaskar K
Аннотация
PURPOSE: To evaluate the decompression of the pelvicalyceal system between urologists and radiologists.
METHODS: A survey was distributed to urologists and to radiologists comparing double-J stent (DJS), percutaneous nephrostomy (PN) and primary ureteroscopy (URS) for three clinical scenarios (1-febrile hydronephrosis; 2-obstruction and persistent pain; 3-obstruction and anuria) before and after reading literature The survey included perception on radiation dose, cost and quality of life (QoL).
RESULTS: Response rate was 40% (366/915). 93% of radiologists believe that DJS offers a better QOL compared to 70.6% of urologists (p = 0.006). 28.4% of urologists consider PN to be more expensive compared to 8.9% of radiologists (p = 0.006). 75% of radiologists believe that radiation exposure is higher with DJS as opposed to 33.9% of urologists. There was not a difference in the decompression preference in the first scenario. After reading the literature, 28.6% of radiologists changed their opinion compared to 5.2% of urologists (p < 0.001). The change favored DJS. In the second scenario, responders preferred equally DJS and they did not change their opinion. In the third scenario, 41% of radiologists chose PN as opposed to 12.6% of urologists (p < 0.001). After reading the literature, 17.9% of radiologists changed their opinion compared to 17.9% of urologists (p < 0.001), in favor of DJS. Although the majority of urologists (63.4%) consistently perform primary URS, only 3, 37 and 21% preferred it for the first, second and third scenarios, respectively.
CONCLUSION: The decision on the type of drainage of a stone-obstructing hydronephrosis should be individualized.
METHODS: A survey was distributed to urologists and to radiologists comparing double-J stent (DJS), percutaneous nephrostomy (PN) and primary ureteroscopy (URS) for three clinical scenarios (1-febrile hydronephrosis; 2-obstruction and persistent pain; 3-obstruction and anuria) before and after reading literature The survey included perception on radiation dose, cost and quality of life (QoL).
RESULTS: Response rate was 40% (366/915). 93% of radiologists believe that DJS offers a better QOL compared to 70.6% of urologists (p = 0.006). 28.4% of urologists consider PN to be more expensive compared to 8.9% of radiologists (p = 0.006). 75% of radiologists believe that radiation exposure is higher with DJS as opposed to 33.9% of urologists. There was not a difference in the decompression preference in the first scenario. After reading the literature, 28.6% of radiologists changed their opinion compared to 5.2% of urologists (p < 0.001). The change favored DJS. In the second scenario, responders preferred equally DJS and they did not change their opinion. In the third scenario, 41% of radiologists chose PN as opposed to 12.6% of urologists (p < 0.001). After reading the literature, 17.9% of radiologists changed their opinion compared to 17.9% of urologists (p < 0.001), in favor of DJS. Although the majority of urologists (63.4%) consistently perform primary URS, only 3, 37 and 21% preferred it for the first, second and third scenarios, respectively.
CONCLUSION: The decision on the type of drainage of a stone-obstructing hydronephrosis should be individualized.