Urology practice · 2016
Ureteroscopy versus Shock Wave Lithotripsy: Factors Influencing Patient Treatment Preferences.
СтатьяНазвание 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.
Gerhard Robert Steven, Shrewsberry Adam, Solomon Tania, Nickleach Dana, Liu Yuan, Pattaras John, Ogan Kenneth
Аннотация
INTRODUCTION: Shock wave lithotripsy and ureteroscopy are considered first line treatment options for patients with urolithiasis. However, these interventions have significant variation in rates of stone-free success, procedure related complications and need for reoperation. We examined patient preferences in treatment selection for urolithiasis and factors associated with choice of treatment.
METHODS: Patients with a history of urolithiasis were self-administered or mailed a questionnaire with a clinical scenario of a stone in the ureter and outcome statistics derived from a Cochrane Review for ureteroscopy and shock wave lithotripsy comparing stone-free success rates, complication rates, need for ureteral stent placement and need for additional surgery. Subjects were asked to choose ureteroscopy or shock wave lithotripsy and to indicate the relative importance that each of the 4 outcome parameters had on their treatment selection.
RESULTS: A total of 163 patients returned complete surveys and a majority preferred ureteroscopy to shock wave lithotripsy (63% vs 37%, p=0.001) for the clinical scenario presented. For factors influencing procedure preference success was indicated as extremely important by 94% (152 of 163) of respondents, followed by complications, need for second surgery and, finally, need for stent.
CONCLUSIONS: A majority of patients preferred ureteroscopy to shock wave lithotripsy after reviewing the evidence-based rates of stone-free success, complications and need for second surgery. Shared decision making and patient centered care should be the focus of surgical treatment selection when there is no consensus regarding a superior treatment for urolithiasis.
METHODS: Patients with a history of urolithiasis were self-administered or mailed a questionnaire with a clinical scenario of a stone in the ureter and outcome statistics derived from a Cochrane Review for ureteroscopy and shock wave lithotripsy comparing stone-free success rates, complication rates, need for ureteral stent placement and need for additional surgery. Subjects were asked to choose ureteroscopy or shock wave lithotripsy and to indicate the relative importance that each of the 4 outcome parameters had on their treatment selection.
RESULTS: A total of 163 patients returned complete surveys and a majority preferred ureteroscopy to shock wave lithotripsy (63% vs 37%, p=0.001) for the clinical scenario presented. For factors influencing procedure preference success was indicated as extremely important by 94% (152 of 163) of respondents, followed by complications, need for second surgery and, finally, need for stent.
CONCLUSIONS: A majority of patients preferred ureteroscopy to shock wave lithotripsy after reviewing the evidence-based rates of stone-free success, complications and need for second surgery. Shared decision making and patient centered care should be the focus of surgical treatment selection when there is no consensus regarding a superior treatment for urolithiasis.