输尿管结石嵌塞的内镜评估强调了内镜医师之间定义的显著差异。

IF 2.8 2区 医学 Q1 UROLOGY & NEPHROLOGY
Journal of endourology Pub Date : 2025-09-01 Epub Date: 2025-07-23 DOI:10.1177/08927790251362867
Jared S Winoker, Brendan Yi, Robert Chang, Raymond Khargi, Jonathan Khusid, William Atallah, Mantu Gupta, Dima Raskolnikov, Alexander Small, Charan Mohan, Gregory Mullen, Sarah Razavi, Tareq Aro, Christopher Hartman, David Hoenig, Zeph Okeke, Arthur Smith, Arun Rai
{"title":"输尿管结石嵌塞的内镜评估强调了内镜医师之间定义的显著差异。","authors":"Jared S Winoker, Brendan Yi, Robert Chang, Raymond Khargi, Jonathan Khusid, William Atallah, Mantu Gupta, Dima Raskolnikov, Alexander Small, Charan Mohan, Gregory Mullen, Sarah Razavi, Tareq Aro, Christopher Hartman, David Hoenig, Zeph Okeke, Arthur Smith, Arun Rai","doi":"10.1177/08927790251362867","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p><b><i>Introduction:</i></b> Previous studies attempting to predict impaction on CT have relied on various criteria without a gold standard for comparison. Intraoperative single-surgeon estimations of impaction have been unvalidated and subjective. This study aimed to investigate surgeon perspectives and variability in estimating ureteral stone impaction based on a curated ureteroscopy video catalog. <b><i>Methods:</i></b> A catalog of 35 primary ureteroscopy cases was distributed to a group of fellowship-trained endourologists. All videos featured visual inspection of tissue around the stone, attempted passage of a guidewire adjacent to the stone, and an attempt to dislodge the stone with gentle nudging of the scope. Participants independently rated impaction on two different scales: continuous (0-9) and categorical (none/mild/moderate/severe). After a first pass, participants rated the videos in a new, random order. Inter- and intrarater agreement across both rating systems was evaluated. <b><i>Results:</i></b> In total, 35 videos were evaluated by 13 endourologists. Overall, 13/35 videos had strong agreement (>70%) on the degree of impaction (6 none, 7 severe), and only 2 of these had 100% agreement (1 none, 1 severe). Continuous scale ratings mirrored the categorical ratings for the none and severe impaction cases. There were no cases with consensus agreement of mild or moderate impaction. More than one-third (12/35) of videos had at least one vote for each of the four severity categories, indicating stark disagreement between surgeons on what constitutes impaction. <b><i>Conclusions:</i></b> There is significant variability among endourologists regarding the definition and severity of stone impaction. When strong agreement occurs, it is when a stone is deemed to be severely impacted or not impacted. Further work is needed to create a standardized definition of impaction based on objective endoscopic criteria. A tripartite classification system may be the most appropriate manner of grouping ureteral stones based on impaction.</p>","PeriodicalId":15723,"journal":{"name":"Journal of endourology","volume":" ","pages":"948-952"},"PeriodicalIF":2.8000,"publicationDate":"2025-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Endoscopic Evaluation of Ureteral Stone Impaction Highlights Significant Variability in Definitions Between Endourologists.\",\"authors\":\"Jared S Winoker, Brendan Yi, Robert Chang, Raymond Khargi, Jonathan Khusid, William Atallah, Mantu Gupta, Dima Raskolnikov, Alexander Small, Charan Mohan, Gregory Mullen, Sarah Razavi, Tareq Aro, Christopher Hartman, David Hoenig, Zeph Okeke, Arthur Smith, Arun Rai\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/08927790251362867\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p><b><i>Introduction:</i></b> Previous studies attempting to predict impaction on CT have relied on various criteria without a gold standard for comparison. Intraoperative single-surgeon estimations of impaction have been unvalidated and subjective. This study aimed to investigate surgeon perspectives and variability in estimating ureteral stone impaction based on a curated ureteroscopy video catalog. <b><i>Methods:</i></b> A catalog of 35 primary ureteroscopy cases was distributed to a group of fellowship-trained endourologists. All videos featured visual inspection of tissue around the stone, attempted passage of a guidewire adjacent to the stone, and an attempt to dislodge the stone with gentle nudging of the scope. Participants independently rated impaction on two different scales: continuous (0-9) and categorical (none/mild/moderate/severe). After a first pass, participants rated the videos in a new, random order. Inter- and intrarater agreement across both rating systems was evaluated. <b><i>Results:</i></b> In total, 35 videos were evaluated by 13 endourologists. Overall, 13/35 videos had strong agreement (>70%) on the degree of impaction (6 none, 7 severe), and only 2 of these had 100% agreement (1 none, 1 severe). Continuous scale ratings mirrored the categorical ratings for the none and severe impaction cases. There were no cases with consensus agreement of mild or moderate impaction. More than one-third (12/35) of videos had at least one vote for each of the four severity categories, indicating stark disagreement between surgeons on what constitutes impaction. <b><i>Conclusions:</i></b> There is significant variability among endourologists regarding the definition and severity of stone impaction. When strong agreement occurs, it is when a stone is deemed to be severely impacted or not impacted. Further work is needed to create a standardized definition of impaction based on objective endoscopic criteria. A tripartite classification system may be the most appropriate manner of grouping ureteral stones based on impaction.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":15723,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of endourology\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"948-952\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-09-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of endourology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/08927790251362867\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2025/7/23 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"UROLOGY & NEPHROLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of endourology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/08927790251362867","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/7/23 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"UROLOGY & NEPHROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

先前的研究试图预测对CT的影响依赖于各种标准,没有一个金标准进行比较。术中单个外科医生对嵌塞的估计未经验证且主观。本研究的目的是探讨外科医生的观点和可变性,以评估输尿管结石嵌塞基于一个策划输尿管镜视频目录。方法:将35例输尿管镜检查病例的目录分配给一组接受过奖学金培训的泌尿科医师。所有视频的特点都是对石头周围的组织进行视觉检查,试图在石头附近通过导丝,并试图通过轻轻地推动瞄准镜将石头移出。参与者在两个不同的尺度上独立评估影响:连续(0-9)和分类(无/轻度/中度/严重)。在第一次浏览之后,参与者按照新的随机顺序对视频进行评分。评估了两个评级系统之间和内部的协议。结果:13名内分泌科医生共对35个视频进行了评估。总的来说,13/35个视频在影响程度上有很强的一致性(bb0 70%)(6个无,7个严重),其中只有2个100%一致(1个无,1个严重)。连续量表评分反映了无影响和严重影响情况的分类评分。没有一致同意轻度或中度影响的病例。超过三分之一(12/35)的视频对四种严重程度类别中的每一种都至少有一票,这表明外科医生对什么构成撞击存在严重分歧。结论:对于结石嵌塞的定义和严重程度,不同的泌尿科医生有显著的差异。当出现强烈的一致时,即认为结石受到严重影响或未受到影响。需要进一步的工作来建立一个基于客观内镜标准的嵌塞的标准化定义。根据输尿管梗阻,三段式分类系统可能是最合适的输尿管结石分类方法。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Endoscopic Evaluation of Ureteral Stone Impaction Highlights Significant Variability in Definitions Between Endourologists.

Introduction: Previous studies attempting to predict impaction on CT have relied on various criteria without a gold standard for comparison. Intraoperative single-surgeon estimations of impaction have been unvalidated and subjective. This study aimed to investigate surgeon perspectives and variability in estimating ureteral stone impaction based on a curated ureteroscopy video catalog. Methods: A catalog of 35 primary ureteroscopy cases was distributed to a group of fellowship-trained endourologists. All videos featured visual inspection of tissue around the stone, attempted passage of a guidewire adjacent to the stone, and an attempt to dislodge the stone with gentle nudging of the scope. Participants independently rated impaction on two different scales: continuous (0-9) and categorical (none/mild/moderate/severe). After a first pass, participants rated the videos in a new, random order. Inter- and intrarater agreement across both rating systems was evaluated. Results: In total, 35 videos were evaluated by 13 endourologists. Overall, 13/35 videos had strong agreement (>70%) on the degree of impaction (6 none, 7 severe), and only 2 of these had 100% agreement (1 none, 1 severe). Continuous scale ratings mirrored the categorical ratings for the none and severe impaction cases. There were no cases with consensus agreement of mild or moderate impaction. More than one-third (12/35) of videos had at least one vote for each of the four severity categories, indicating stark disagreement between surgeons on what constitutes impaction. Conclusions: There is significant variability among endourologists regarding the definition and severity of stone impaction. When strong agreement occurs, it is when a stone is deemed to be severely impacted or not impacted. Further work is needed to create a standardized definition of impaction based on objective endoscopic criteria. A tripartite classification system may be the most appropriate manner of grouping ureteral stones based on impaction.

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 endourology
Journal of endourology 医学-泌尿学与肾脏学
CiteScore
5.50
自引率
14.80%
发文量
254
审稿时长
1 months
期刊介绍: Journal of Endourology, JE Case Reports, and Videourology are the leading peer-reviewed journal, case reports publication, and innovative videojournal companion covering all aspects of minimally invasive urology research, applications, and clinical outcomes. The leading journal of minimally invasive urology for over 30 years, Journal of Endourology is the essential publication for practicing surgeons who want to keep up with the latest surgical technologies in endoscopic, laparoscopic, robotic, and image-guided procedures as they apply to benign and malignant diseases of the genitourinary tract. This flagship journal includes the companion videojournal Videourology™ with every subscription. While Journal of Endourology remains focused on publishing rigorously peer reviewed articles, Videourology accepts original videos containing material that has not been reported elsewhere, except in the form of an abstract or a conference presentation. Journal of Endourology coverage includes: The latest laparoscopic, robotic, endoscopic, and image-guided techniques for treating both benign and malignant conditions Pioneering research articles Controversial cases in endourology Techniques in endourology with accompanying videos Reviews and epochs in endourology Endourology survey section of endourology relevant manuscripts published in other journals.
×
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