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

Stefano Paolo Zanetti, Michele Talso, Franco Palmisano, Fabrizio Longo, Andrea Gallioli, Matteo Fontana, Elisa De Lorenzis, Gianluca Sampogna, Luca Boeri, Giancarlo Albo, Alberto Trinchieri, Emanuele Montanari

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

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.

Original languageEnglish
Article numbere0205159
JournalPLoS One
Volume13
Issue number11
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - Nov 1 2018

Fingerprint

Percutaneous Nephrostomy
Urolithiasis
Surgery
surgery
kidneys
Therapeutics
methodology
Kidney
Surveys and Questionnaires
urolithiasis
Safety
surgeons
Miniaturization
compound A 12
monkeys

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology(all)
  • Agricultural and Biological Sciences(all)

Cite this

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.

In: PLoS One, Vol. 13, No. 11, e0205159, 01.11.2018.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

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?. In: PLoS One. 2018 ; Vol. 13, No. 11.
@article{ef90a84e5fc541d0ad90292ce6d96429,
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?",
abstract = "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.",
author = "Zanetti, {Stefano Paolo} and Michele Talso and Franco Palmisano and Fabrizio Longo and Andrea Gallioli and Matteo Fontana and {De Lorenzis}, Elisa and Gianluca Sampogna and Luca Boeri and Giancarlo Albo and Alberto Trinchieri and Emanuele Montanari",
year = "2018",
month = "11",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1371/journal.pone.0205159",
language = "English",
volume = "13",
journal = "PLoS One",
issn = "1932-6203",
publisher = "Public Library of Science",
number = "11",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Comparison among the available stone treatment techniques from the first European Association of Urology Section of Urolithiasis (EULIS) Survey

T2 - Do we have a queen?

AU - Zanetti, Stefano Paolo

AU - Talso, Michele

AU - Palmisano, Franco

AU - Longo, Fabrizio

AU - Gallioli, Andrea

AU - Fontana, Matteo

AU - De Lorenzis, Elisa

AU - Sampogna, Gianluca

AU - Boeri, Luca

AU - Albo, Giancarlo

AU - Trinchieri, Alberto

AU - Montanari, Emanuele

PY - 2018/11/1

Y1 - 2018/11/1

N2 - 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.

AB - 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.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85056056795&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85056056795&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1371/journal.pone.0205159

DO - 10.1371/journal.pone.0205159

M3 - Article

C2 - 30388123

AN - SCOPUS:85056056795

VL - 13

JO - PLoS One

JF - PLoS One

SN - 1932-6203

IS - 11

M1 - e0205159

ER -