COVID-19 时代之后 SWL 的实际临床实践模式:从不同方面进行批判性评估。

IF 2 2区 医学 Q2 UROLOGY & NEPHROLOGY
Erhan Erdoğan, Göksu Sarıca, Cahit Şahin, Kemal Sarıca
{"title":"COVID-19 时代之后 SWL 的实际临床实践模式:从不同方面进行批判性评估。","authors":"Erhan Erdoğan, Göksu Sarıca, Cahit Şahin, Kemal Sarıca","doi":"10.1007/s00240-024-01650-8","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>To outline the current status of Shock Wave Lithotripsy (SWL) in stone treatment and the changes in the mode of application after the COVID-19 pandemic along with critical factors affecting the clinical practice of this particular procedure. This study targeted national and international urology experts who could share and contribute their experiences and perspectives on SWL practices after COVID-19 era. Approximately 650 urology specialists were invited to participate in the survey based study via Google Forms. Participation was voluntary and 398 of the invited participants completed the survey, yielding an acceptable response rate of approximately 61.23%. This survey highlights significant findings that shed light on the changes in clinical SWL applications. Nearly half of SWL procedures are performed by technicians or nurses instead of experienced urologists, potentially affecting the proper application and outcomes of the procedure. SWL seemed to be applied on a guideline (GL) indications based manner by the majority of the participants. Fluoroscopy remains still as the most commonly used method for radiological assessment, underscoring the necessity to teach sonography applications to younger urologists. Key reasons for the limited clinical application of SWL include the absence of lithotripters in the departments, high lithotriptor costs and significantly lower reimbursement rates compared to PNL and fURS modalities. Finally, an increase in SWL utilization rates has been observed post-COVID-19, highlighting its certain advantages realized during this period. These findings provide important insights into the role of SWL in stone treatment and the main factors influencing its clinical application practices. Although the popularity of SWL in the management of urinary stones is being stated to decline particularly in the last two decades, data obtained in this survey emphasized well that it is still a viable option especially for stones smaller than 15 mm. Our findings highlight the enduring relevance of SWL in contemporary stone therapy protocols in the context of COVID-19, where outpatient, non-invasive procedures are preferred. In addition to the consideration of certain factors affecting the rate of its application in clinical practice, to achieve high success rates with minimal complications in SWL, strategic patient selection and adherence to procedure guidelines seem to be crucial.</p>","PeriodicalId":23411,"journal":{"name":"Urolithiasis","volume":"52 1","pages":"155"},"PeriodicalIF":2.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Actual clinical practice pattern in SWL after COVID-19 era: a critical evaluation from different aspects.\",\"authors\":\"Erhan Erdoğan, Göksu Sarıca, Cahit Şahin, Kemal Sarıca\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s00240-024-01650-8\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>To outline the current status of Shock Wave Lithotripsy (SWL) in stone treatment and the changes in the mode of application after the COVID-19 pandemic along with critical factors affecting the clinical practice of this particular procedure. This study targeted national and international urology experts who could share and contribute their experiences and perspectives on SWL practices after COVID-19 era. Approximately 650 urology specialists were invited to participate in the survey based study via Google Forms. Participation was voluntary and 398 of the invited participants completed the survey, yielding an acceptable response rate of approximately 61.23%. This survey highlights significant findings that shed light on the changes in clinical SWL applications. Nearly half of SWL procedures are performed by technicians or nurses instead of experienced urologists, potentially affecting the proper application and outcomes of the procedure. SWL seemed to be applied on a guideline (GL) indications based manner by the majority of the participants. Fluoroscopy remains still as the most commonly used method for radiological assessment, underscoring the necessity to teach sonography applications to younger urologists. Key reasons for the limited clinical application of SWL include the absence of lithotripters in the departments, high lithotriptor costs and significantly lower reimbursement rates compared to PNL and fURS modalities. Finally, an increase in SWL utilization rates has been observed post-COVID-19, highlighting its certain advantages realized during this period. These findings provide important insights into the role of SWL in stone treatment and the main factors influencing its clinical application practices. Although the popularity of SWL in the management of urinary stones is being stated to decline particularly in the last two decades, data obtained in this survey emphasized well that it is still a viable option especially for stones smaller than 15 mm. Our findings highlight the enduring relevance of SWL in contemporary stone therapy protocols in the context of COVID-19, where outpatient, non-invasive procedures are preferred. In addition to the consideration of certain factors affecting the rate of its application in clinical practice, to achieve high success rates with minimal complications in SWL, strategic patient selection and adherence to procedure guidelines seem to be crucial.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":23411,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Urolithiasis\",\"volume\":\"52 1\",\"pages\":\"155\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-11-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Urolithiasis\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s00240-024-01650-8\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"UROLOGY & NEPHROLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Urolithiasis","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s00240-024-01650-8","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"UROLOGY & NEPHROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

概述冲击波碎石术(SWL)在结石治疗中的现状、COVID-19 大流行后应用模式的变化以及影响这一特殊手术临床实践的关键因素。这项研究的目标人群是国内和国际泌尿科专家,他们可以就 COVID-19 流行后的 SWL 实践分享和贡献他们的经验和观点。约有 650 名泌尿科专家受邀通过谷歌表格参与这项基于调查的研究。受邀者自愿参与,其中 398 人完成了调查,回复率约为 61.23%。这项调查强调了一些重要发现,揭示了 SWL 临床应用的变化。近一半的 SWL 手术是由技术人员或护士而非经验丰富的泌尿科医生实施的,这可能会影响手术的正确应用和效果。大多数参与者似乎都是根据指南(GL)的适应症来应用 SWL。透视检查仍是最常用的放射评估方法,这说明有必要向年轻的泌尿科医生传授超声检查的应用。体外碎石临床应用有限的主要原因包括:科室中没有碎石机、碎石机成本高昂以及报销比例明显低于 PNL 和 fURS 方法。最后,据观察,COVID-19 后,SWL 的使用率有所上升,凸显了其在此期间实现的某些优势。这些发现为了解 SWL 在结石治疗中的作用以及影响其临床应用实践的主要因素提供了重要依据。虽然有人说 SWL 在治疗泌尿系结石方面的受欢迎程度有所下降,尤其是在过去二十年里,但本次调查获得的数据充分强调了它仍然是一种可行的选择,尤其是对于小于 15 毫米的结石。我们的研究结果突出表明,在 COVID-19 的背景下,SWL 在当代结石治疗方案中仍具有重要意义,因为门诊无创手术是首选。除了考虑影响其临床应用率的某些因素外,要想使SWL的成功率高且并发症少,战略性地选择患者和遵守手术指南似乎至关重要。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Actual clinical practice pattern in SWL after COVID-19 era: a critical evaluation from different aspects.

To outline the current status of Shock Wave Lithotripsy (SWL) in stone treatment and the changes in the mode of application after the COVID-19 pandemic along with critical factors affecting the clinical practice of this particular procedure. This study targeted national and international urology experts who could share and contribute their experiences and perspectives on SWL practices after COVID-19 era. Approximately 650 urology specialists were invited to participate in the survey based study via Google Forms. Participation was voluntary and 398 of the invited participants completed the survey, yielding an acceptable response rate of approximately 61.23%. This survey highlights significant findings that shed light on the changes in clinical SWL applications. Nearly half of SWL procedures are performed by technicians or nurses instead of experienced urologists, potentially affecting the proper application and outcomes of the procedure. SWL seemed to be applied on a guideline (GL) indications based manner by the majority of the participants. Fluoroscopy remains still as the most commonly used method for radiological assessment, underscoring the necessity to teach sonography applications to younger urologists. Key reasons for the limited clinical application of SWL include the absence of lithotripters in the departments, high lithotriptor costs and significantly lower reimbursement rates compared to PNL and fURS modalities. Finally, an increase in SWL utilization rates has been observed post-COVID-19, highlighting its certain advantages realized during this period. These findings provide important insights into the role of SWL in stone treatment and the main factors influencing its clinical application practices. Although the popularity of SWL in the management of urinary stones is being stated to decline particularly in the last two decades, data obtained in this survey emphasized well that it is still a viable option especially for stones smaller than 15 mm. Our findings highlight the enduring relevance of SWL in contemporary stone therapy protocols in the context of COVID-19, where outpatient, non-invasive procedures are preferred. In addition to the consideration of certain factors affecting the rate of its application in clinical practice, to achieve high success rates with minimal complications in SWL, strategic patient selection and adherence to procedure guidelines seem to be crucial.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Urolithiasis
Urolithiasis UROLOGY & NEPHROLOGY-
CiteScore
4.50
自引率
6.50%
发文量
74
期刊介绍: Official Journal of the International Urolithiasis Society The journal aims to publish original articles in the fields of clinical and experimental investigation only within the sphere of urolithiasis and its related areas of research. The journal covers all aspects of urolithiasis research including the diagnosis, epidemiology, pathogenesis, genetics, clinical biochemistry, open and non-invasive surgical intervention, nephrological investigation, chemistry and prophylaxis of the disorder. The Editor welcomes contributions on topics of interest to urologists, nephrologists, radiologists, clinical biochemists, epidemiologists, nutritionists, basic scientists and nurses working in that field. Contributions may be submitted as full-length articles or as rapid communications in the form of Letters to the Editor. Articles should be original and should contain important new findings from carefully conducted studies designed to produce statistically significant data. Please note that we no longer publish articles classified as Case Reports. Editorials and review articles may be published by invitation from the Editorial Board. All submissions are peer-reviewed. Through an electronic system for the submission and review of manuscripts, the Editor and Associate Editors aim to make publication accessible as quickly as possible to a large number of readers throughout the world.
×
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