Heavy as a rock or light as dust: a comparison between the perceived workload for extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy, ureterorenoscopy and percutaneous nephrolithotomy.

IF 1.4 Q3 UROLOGY & NEPHROLOGY
Central European Journal of Urology Pub Date : 2024-01-01 Epub Date: 2024-01-26 DOI:10.5173/ceju.2023.214
Michaël Mel Henderickx, Nora Hendriks, A Carolien Bouma-Houwert, Joyce Baard, Guido M Kamphuis, Hugo W Schuil, Harrie P Beerlage, D Martijn de Bruin
{"title":"Heavy as a rock or light as dust: a comparison between the perceived workload for extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy, ureterorenoscopy and percutaneous nephrolithotomy.","authors":"Michaël Mel Henderickx, Nora Hendriks, A Carolien Bouma-Houwert, Joyce Baard, Guido M Kamphuis, Hugo W Schuil, Harrie P Beerlage, D Martijn de Bruin","doi":"10.5173/ceju.2023.214","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>There are three common treatment options for kidney stones: extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy (ESWL), ureterorenoscopy (URS) and percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PNL). The choice of treatment is based on stone- and patient-related characteristics. However, some stones are eligible for several approaches and the decision is made based on patient and urologist's preferences. This study evaluates which approach has the highest workload.</p><p><strong>Material and methods: </strong>Between March and August 2022, five members of the Amsterdam Endourology Research Group collected data from 22 ESWL, 31 URS and 22 PNL procedures. After each procedure, the SURG-TLX questionnaire was completed by the surgeon to evaluate workload. Six dimensions were scored for each procedure, including: mental demands, physical demands, temporal demands, task complexity, situational stress, and distractions. The total workload, and the median for each dimension, was calculated and compared for the three treatments.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>ESWL scored significantly lower than URS for mental demands, physical demands, temporal demands, situational stress, distraction and total workload. However, task complexity did not differ significantly between the two techniques. Compared with PNL, ESWL scored significantly lower for all dimensions. Finally, PNL received significantly higher scores for mental demands, physical demands, temporal demands, situational stress, distractions and total workload than URS. Only task complexity showed no significant difference between both groups.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Urologists perceive the highest workload during PNL, followed by URS and finally ESWL. A follow-up study is needed to identify stressors that increase perceived workload with the purpose to address these variables and as final objective to improve urologists' workload, patient safety and treatment outcomes.</p>","PeriodicalId":9744,"journal":{"name":"Central European Journal of Urology","volume":"77 1","pages":"129-135"},"PeriodicalIF":1.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11032039/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Central European Journal of Urology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5173/ceju.2023.214","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/1/26 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"UROLOGY & NEPHROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction: There are three common treatment options for kidney stones: extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy (ESWL), ureterorenoscopy (URS) and percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PNL). The choice of treatment is based on stone- and patient-related characteristics. However, some stones are eligible for several approaches and the decision is made based on patient and urologist's preferences. This study evaluates which approach has the highest workload.

Material and methods: Between March and August 2022, five members of the Amsterdam Endourology Research Group collected data from 22 ESWL, 31 URS and 22 PNL procedures. After each procedure, the SURG-TLX questionnaire was completed by the surgeon to evaluate workload. Six dimensions were scored for each procedure, including: mental demands, physical demands, temporal demands, task complexity, situational stress, and distractions. The total workload, and the median for each dimension, was calculated and compared for the three treatments.

Results: ESWL scored significantly lower than URS for mental demands, physical demands, temporal demands, situational stress, distraction and total workload. However, task complexity did not differ significantly between the two techniques. Compared with PNL, ESWL scored significantly lower for all dimensions. Finally, PNL received significantly higher scores for mental demands, physical demands, temporal demands, situational stress, distractions and total workload than URS. Only task complexity showed no significant difference between both groups.

Conclusions: Urologists perceive the highest workload during PNL, followed by URS and finally ESWL. A follow-up study is needed to identify stressors that increase perceived workload with the purpose to address these variables and as final objective to improve urologists' workload, patient safety and treatment outcomes.

重如磐石还是轻如尘埃:体外冲击波碎石术、输尿管镜检查和经皮肾镜碎石术的工作量比较。
导言:肾结石有三种常见的治疗方法:体外冲击波碎石(ESWL)、输尿管镜检查(URS)和经皮肾镜碎石术(PNL)。治疗方法的选择取决于结石和患者的相关特征。不过,有些结石可采用多种方法治疗,因此要根据患者和泌尿科医生的喜好来决定。本研究评估了哪种方法的工作量最大:2022 年 3 月至 8 月间,阿姆斯特丹腔内泌尿学研究小组的五名成员收集了 22 例 ESWL、31 例 URS 和 22 例 PNL 手术的数据。每次手术后,外科医生都要填写 SURG-TLX 问卷,以评估工作量。每项手术都有六个方面的评分,包括:精神需求、体力需求、时间需求、任务复杂性、情境压力和分心。计算并比较了三种治疗方法的总工作量和每个维度的中位数:结果:ESWL 在精神需求、体力需求、时间需求、情境压力、分心和总工作量方面的得分明显低于 URS。然而,两种技术的任务复杂性并无明显差异。与 PNL 相比,ESWL 在所有方面的得分都明显较低。最后,PNL 在心理需求、生理需求、时间需求、情境压力、注意力分散和总工作量方面的得分都明显高于 URS。只有任务复杂性在两组之间没有明显差异:结论:泌尿科医生在 PNL 过程中的工作量最大,其次是 URS,最后是 ESWL。需要进行后续研究,以确定增加感知工作量的压力因素,从而解决这些变量,并将改善泌尿科医生的工作量、患者安全和治疗效果作为最终目标。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Central European Journal of Urology
Central European Journal of Urology UROLOGY & NEPHROLOGY-
CiteScore
2.30
自引率
8.30%
发文量
48
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信