输尿管镜检查的不确定性:评估外科医生对激光碎石后体内石尘的共识。

IF 2 3区 医学 Q2 UROLOGY & NEPHROLOGY
Levi Bowers, Kimberly Maciolek, Ryan S Hsi, Nicholas Kavoussi
{"title":"输尿管镜检查的不确定性:评估外科医生对激光碎石后体内石尘的共识。","authors":"Levi Bowers, Kimberly Maciolek, Ryan S Hsi, Nicholas Kavoussi","doi":"10.1016/j.urology.2025.09.028","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>To evaluate surgeon consensus on stone dust quality and the ability to predict stone-free status based on intraoperative endoscopic appearance during ureteroscopy with laser lithotripsy.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Fifteen urologists (7 faculty, 8 trainees) reviewed 16 videos of ureteroscopic laser lithotripsy, blinded to clinical outcomes. Eight videos were from patients who were stone-free at 6-week postoperative CT; eight had residual fragments. Reviewers rated stone dust quality on a 5-point Likert scale and predicted stone-free status. Inter-rater reliability was measured using the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC). Accuracy of stone-free prediction was compared using a two-tailed t-test.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Inter-rater agreement on dust quality was poor (ICC = 0.41), with slightly higher agreement among faculty (ICC = 0.49) compared to trainees (ICC = 0.38). Mean accuracy of stone-free prediction was 63% (SD: 9%), with no significant difference between faculty and trainees (67% vs 58%, p = 0.05). Sensitivity and specificity of predicting residual fragments were 55% and 72%, respectively. Confidence in predictions did not differ between groups. Notably, three of eight cases with residual fragments resulted in significant clinical events (ICU admission, reintervention), with mean time to event of 221 days. In these, surgeon prediction accuracy remained modest (63%, SD: 14%).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Surgeon assessment of stone dust quality is inconsistent, and predictive accuracy for stone-free status based on endoscopic appearance is limited. These findings underscore the need for standardized definitions and objective intraoperative tools to optimize outcomes in laser stone surgery.</p>","PeriodicalId":23415,"journal":{"name":"Urology","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-09-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Uncertainty During Ureteroscopy: Evaluating Surgeon Consensus on In Vivo Stone Dust After Laser Lithotripsy.\",\"authors\":\"Levi Bowers, Kimberly Maciolek, Ryan S Hsi, Nicholas Kavoussi\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.urology.2025.09.028\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>To evaluate surgeon consensus on stone dust quality and the ability to predict stone-free status based on intraoperative endoscopic appearance during ureteroscopy with laser lithotripsy.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Fifteen urologists (7 faculty, 8 trainees) reviewed 16 videos of ureteroscopic laser lithotripsy, blinded to clinical outcomes. Eight videos were from patients who were stone-free at 6-week postoperative CT; eight had residual fragments. Reviewers rated stone dust quality on a 5-point Likert scale and predicted stone-free status. Inter-rater reliability was measured using the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC). Accuracy of stone-free prediction was compared using a two-tailed t-test.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Inter-rater agreement on dust quality was poor (ICC = 0.41), with slightly higher agreement among faculty (ICC = 0.49) compared to trainees (ICC = 0.38). Mean accuracy of stone-free prediction was 63% (SD: 9%), with no significant difference between faculty and trainees (67% vs 58%, p = 0.05). Sensitivity and specificity of predicting residual fragments were 55% and 72%, respectively. Confidence in predictions did not differ between groups. Notably, three of eight cases with residual fragments resulted in significant clinical events (ICU admission, reintervention), with mean time to event of 221 days. In these, surgeon prediction accuracy remained modest (63%, SD: 14%).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Surgeon assessment of stone dust quality is inconsistent, and predictive accuracy for stone-free status based on endoscopic appearance is limited. These findings underscore the need for standardized definitions and objective intraoperative tools to optimize outcomes in laser stone surgery.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":23415,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Urology\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-09-25\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Urology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urology.2025.09.028\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"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":"Urology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urology.2025.09.028","RegionNum":3,"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

目的:评价外科医生对输尿管镜激光碎石术中结石质量的共识,以及根据术中内镜外观预测结石无结石状态的能力。方法:15名泌尿科医师(7名教师,8名实习生)在不观察临床结果的情况下,回顾16段输尿管镜激光碎石视频。8个视频来自术后6周CT无结石患者;8个有残余碎片。评论家们用李克特5分制对石尘质量进行了评级,并预测了石尘的无石状态。用类内相关系数(ICC)来测量组间信度。采用双尾t检验比较无结石预测的准确性。结果:教师对粉尘质量的一致性较差(ICC = 0.41),教师对粉尘质量的一致性略高于实习生(ICC = 0.38)。无结石预测的平均准确率为63% (SD: 9%),教师和学员之间无显著差异(67% vs 58%, p = 0.05)。预测残留碎片的敏感性为55%,特异性为72%。对预测的信心在两组之间没有差异。值得注意的是,残留碎片8例中有3例导致重大临床事件(ICU入院,再干预),平均发生时间为221天。在这些病例中,外科医生的预测准确率仍然不高(63%,标准差:14%)。结论:外科医生对石尘质量的评估是不一致的,基于内镜外观对无石尘状态的预测准确性是有限的。这些发现强调需要标准化的定义和客观的术中工具来优化激光结石手术的结果。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Uncertainty During Ureteroscopy: Evaluating Surgeon Consensus on In Vivo Stone Dust After Laser Lithotripsy.

Objective: To evaluate surgeon consensus on stone dust quality and the ability to predict stone-free status based on intraoperative endoscopic appearance during ureteroscopy with laser lithotripsy.

Methods: Fifteen urologists (7 faculty, 8 trainees) reviewed 16 videos of ureteroscopic laser lithotripsy, blinded to clinical outcomes. Eight videos were from patients who were stone-free at 6-week postoperative CT; eight had residual fragments. Reviewers rated stone dust quality on a 5-point Likert scale and predicted stone-free status. Inter-rater reliability was measured using the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC). Accuracy of stone-free prediction was compared using a two-tailed t-test.

Results: Inter-rater agreement on dust quality was poor (ICC = 0.41), with slightly higher agreement among faculty (ICC = 0.49) compared to trainees (ICC = 0.38). Mean accuracy of stone-free prediction was 63% (SD: 9%), with no significant difference between faculty and trainees (67% vs 58%, p = 0.05). Sensitivity and specificity of predicting residual fragments were 55% and 72%, respectively. Confidence in predictions did not differ between groups. Notably, three of eight cases with residual fragments resulted in significant clinical events (ICU admission, reintervention), with mean time to event of 221 days. In these, surgeon prediction accuracy remained modest (63%, SD: 14%).

Conclusion: Surgeon assessment of stone dust quality is inconsistent, and predictive accuracy for stone-free status based on endoscopic appearance is limited. These findings underscore the need for standardized definitions and objective intraoperative tools to optimize outcomes in laser stone surgery.

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
Urology
Urology 医学-泌尿学与肾脏学
CiteScore
3.30
自引率
9.50%
发文量
716
审稿时长
59 days
期刊介绍: Urology is a monthly, peer–reviewed journal primarily for urologists, residents, interns, nephrologists, and other specialists interested in urology The mission of Urology®, the "Gold Journal," is to provide practical, timely, and relevant clinical and basic science information to physicians and researchers practicing the art of urology worldwide. Urology® publishes original articles relating to adult and pediatric clinical urology as well as to clinical and basic science research. Topics in Urology® include pediatrics, surgical oncology, radiology, pathology, erectile dysfunction, infertility, incontinence, transplantation, endourology, andrology, female urology, reconstructive surgery, and medical oncology, as well as relevant basic science issues. Special features include rapid communication of important timely issues, surgeon''s workshops, interesting case reports, surgical techniques, clinical and basic science review articles, guest editorials, letters to the editor, book reviews, and historical articles in urology.
×
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