输尿管镜与冲击波碎石术治疗下极肾结石:外科合作治疗的差异和结果。

IF 6.8 2区 医学 Q1 UROLOGY & NEPHROLOGY
Journal of Urology Pub Date : 2025-10-01 Epub Date: 2025-06-09 DOI:10.1097/JU.0000000000004628
John Michael DiBianco, Stephanie Daignault-Newton, Golena Fernandez Moncaleano, Eric Stockall, Spencer Hiller, Hyung Joon Kim, Hector Pimentel, David Wenzler, Brian Seifman, Naveen Kachroo, Casey A Dauw, Khurshid R Ghani
{"title":"输尿管镜与冲击波碎石术治疗下极肾结石:外科合作治疗的差异和结果。","authors":"John Michael DiBianco, Stephanie Daignault-Newton, Golena Fernandez Moncaleano, Eric Stockall, Spencer Hiller, Hyung Joon Kim, Hector Pimentel, David Wenzler, Brian Seifman, Naveen Kachroo, Casey A Dauw, Khurshid R Ghani","doi":"10.1097/JU.0000000000004628","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>AUA guidelines recommend ureteroscopy (URS) or shock wave lithotripsy (SWL) for lower pole (LP) stones ≤ 1 cm, while SWL is second line for stones > 1 to 2 cm. In the era of increasing URS, there are limited data on the modality used and outcomes. We assessed treatment distribution, stone-free rates (SFRs), and unplanned health care.</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>Using the Michigan Urological Surgery Improvement Collaborative registry, we identified URS and SWL cases for LP stones ≤ 2 cm (2016-2021). We assessed the frequency of patients receiving URS or SWL as a proportion of their LP treatment. A logistic model determined predictive probability of treatment modality. Differences in complete SFRs, postoperative emergency department visits, and hospitalizations were assessed by size (≤1 cm, >1-2 cm), adjusted for patient factors and correlation within practice/provider.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>There were 3645 procedures from 35 practices (209 surgeons); 2287 (62.7%) had SWL. Of the stones 80.2% were ≤ 1 cm. There was variation in modality based on practice (<i>P</i> < .001) and surgeon (<i>P</i> < .001). For stones ≤ 1 cm, the SFR was higher for URS (56% vs 39%; <i>P</i> < .001). There were no significant differences in SFRs for > 1 to 2 cm stones. Emergency department visits were higher after URS for stones ≤ 1 cm (odds ratio [OR]: 2.95, 95% CI: 1.7-5.0) but not for > 1 to 2 cm stones (OR: 0.97, 95% CI: 0.4-2.2). URS for stones ≤ 1 cm was associated with increased hospitalizations (OR: 4.67, 95% CI: 1.7-12.9) but not for stones > 1 to 2 cm (OR: 0.96, 95% CI: 0.4-2.2).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>In Michigan, SWL is the chosen modality for LP stones ≤ 2 cm. For smaller stones, URS was more effective but had greater morbidity. For larger stones, both modalities demonstrated suboptimal efficacy. Our work demonstrates the need for interventions to improve outcomes.</p>","PeriodicalId":17471,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Urology","volume":" ","pages":"415-425"},"PeriodicalIF":6.8000,"publicationDate":"2025-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Ureteroscopy vs Shock Wave Lithotripsy for Lower Pole Renal Stones: Treatment Variation and Outcomes in a Surgical Collaborative.\",\"authors\":\"John Michael DiBianco, Stephanie Daignault-Newton, Golena Fernandez Moncaleano, Eric Stockall, Spencer Hiller, Hyung Joon Kim, Hector Pimentel, David Wenzler, Brian Seifman, Naveen Kachroo, Casey A Dauw, Khurshid R Ghani\",\"doi\":\"10.1097/JU.0000000000004628\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>AUA guidelines recommend ureteroscopy (URS) or shock wave lithotripsy (SWL) for lower pole (LP) stones ≤ 1 cm, while SWL is second line for stones > 1 to 2 cm. In the era of increasing URS, there are limited data on the modality used and outcomes. We assessed treatment distribution, stone-free rates (SFRs), and unplanned health care.</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>Using the Michigan Urological Surgery Improvement Collaborative registry, we identified URS and SWL cases for LP stones ≤ 2 cm (2016-2021). We assessed the frequency of patients receiving URS or SWL as a proportion of their LP treatment. A logistic model determined predictive probability of treatment modality. Differences in complete SFRs, postoperative emergency department visits, and hospitalizations were assessed by size (≤1 cm, >1-2 cm), adjusted for patient factors and correlation within practice/provider.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>There were 3645 procedures from 35 practices (209 surgeons); 2287 (62.7%) had SWL. Of the stones 80.2% were ≤ 1 cm. There was variation in modality based on practice (<i>P</i> < .001) and surgeon (<i>P</i> < .001). For stones ≤ 1 cm, the SFR was higher for URS (56% vs 39%; <i>P</i> < .001). There were no significant differences in SFRs for > 1 to 2 cm stones. Emergency department visits were higher after URS for stones ≤ 1 cm (odds ratio [OR]: 2.95, 95% CI: 1.7-5.0) but not for > 1 to 2 cm stones (OR: 0.97, 95% CI: 0.4-2.2). URS for stones ≤ 1 cm was associated with increased hospitalizations (OR: 4.67, 95% CI: 1.7-12.9) but not for stones > 1 to 2 cm (OR: 0.96, 95% CI: 0.4-2.2).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>In Michigan, SWL is the chosen modality for LP stones ≤ 2 cm. For smaller stones, URS was more effective but had greater morbidity. For larger stones, both modalities demonstrated suboptimal efficacy. Our work demonstrates the need for interventions to improve outcomes.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":17471,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Urology\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"415-425\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":6.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-10-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Urology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1097/JU.0000000000004628\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2025/6/9 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"UROLOGY & NEPHROLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Urology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/JU.0000000000004628","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/6/9 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"UROLOGY & NEPHROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的:AUA指南推荐输尿管镜检查(URS)或冲击波碎石(SWL)治疗≤1cm的下极(LP)结石,而SWL是1-2cm结石的二线治疗。在URS增加的时代,关于使用的方式和结果的数据有限。我们评估了治疗分布、无结石率(SFR)和计划外保健。方法:使用密歇根泌尿外科改进协作(MUSIC)注册表,我们确定了2016-2021年LP结石≤2cm的URS和SWL病例。我们评估了患者接受URS或SWL的频率作为其LP治疗的比例。logistic模型确定了治疗方式的预测概率。完全sfr、术后急诊科(ED)就诊和住院的差异通过尺寸(≤1cm, >1-2cm)进行评估,并根据患者因素和诊所/提供者之间的相关性进行调整。结果:35家医院(209名外科医生)共3645例手术;2287例(62.7%)发生SWL。80.2%的结石≤1cm。p1-2cm结石的形态随手术的不同而不同。结石≤1cm (OR:2.95, 95%CI:1.7-5.0),而结石≤bbb1 -2cm (OR:0.97, 95%CI:0.4-2.2)的患者在URS后急诊科就诊率较高。结石≤1cm的尿潴留与住院率增加相关(OR:4.67, 95%CI:1.7-12.9),但结石≤1-2cm的尿潴留与住院率增加无关(OR:0.96, 95%CI:0.4-2.2)。结论:在密歇根州,对于≤2cm的LP结石,SWL是首选的手术方式。对于较小的结石,URS更有效,但发病率更高。对于较大的结石,两种治疗方法的效果都不理想。我们的工作表明,需要采取干预措施来改善结果。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Ureteroscopy vs Shock Wave Lithotripsy for Lower Pole Renal Stones: Treatment Variation and Outcomes in a Surgical Collaborative.

Purpose: AUA guidelines recommend ureteroscopy (URS) or shock wave lithotripsy (SWL) for lower pole (LP) stones ≤ 1 cm, while SWL is second line for stones > 1 to 2 cm. In the era of increasing URS, there are limited data on the modality used and outcomes. We assessed treatment distribution, stone-free rates (SFRs), and unplanned health care.

Materials and methods: Using the Michigan Urological Surgery Improvement Collaborative registry, we identified URS and SWL cases for LP stones ≤ 2 cm (2016-2021). We assessed the frequency of patients receiving URS or SWL as a proportion of their LP treatment. A logistic model determined predictive probability of treatment modality. Differences in complete SFRs, postoperative emergency department visits, and hospitalizations were assessed by size (≤1 cm, >1-2 cm), adjusted for patient factors and correlation within practice/provider.

Results: There were 3645 procedures from 35 practices (209 surgeons); 2287 (62.7%) had SWL. Of the stones 80.2% were ≤ 1 cm. There was variation in modality based on practice (P < .001) and surgeon (P < .001). For stones ≤ 1 cm, the SFR was higher for URS (56% vs 39%; P < .001). There were no significant differences in SFRs for > 1 to 2 cm stones. Emergency department visits were higher after URS for stones ≤ 1 cm (odds ratio [OR]: 2.95, 95% CI: 1.7-5.0) but not for > 1 to 2 cm stones (OR: 0.97, 95% CI: 0.4-2.2). URS for stones ≤ 1 cm was associated with increased hospitalizations (OR: 4.67, 95% CI: 1.7-12.9) but not for stones > 1 to 2 cm (OR: 0.96, 95% CI: 0.4-2.2).

Conclusions: In Michigan, SWL is the chosen modality for LP stones ≤ 2 cm. For smaller stones, URS was more effective but had greater morbidity. For larger stones, both modalities demonstrated suboptimal efficacy. Our work demonstrates the need for interventions to improve outcomes.

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
Journal of Urology
Journal of Urology 医学-泌尿学与肾脏学
CiteScore
11.50
自引率
7.60%
发文量
3746
审稿时长
2-3 weeks
期刊介绍: The Official Journal of the American Urological Association (AUA), and the most widely read and highly cited journal in the field, The Journal of Urology® brings solid coverage of the clinically relevant content needed to stay at the forefront of the dynamic field of urology. This premier journal presents investigative studies on critical areas of research and practice, survey articles providing short condensations of the best and most important urology literature worldwide, and practice-oriented reports on significant clinical observations.
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信