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}
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.
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.