Advertisement
You are prohibited from using or uploading content you accessed through this website into external applications, bots, software, or websites, including those using artificial intelligence technologies and infrastructure, including deep learning, machine learning and large language models and generative AI.
Advertisement

Purpose:

Upper tract nephrolithiasis is a common surgical condition that is treated with multiple surgical techniques, including shock wave lithotripsy, ureteroscopy and percutaneous nephrolithotomy. We analyzed case logs submitted to the ABU by candidates for initial certification and recertification to help elucidate the trends in management of upper tract urinary calculi.

Materials and Methods:

Annualized case logs from 2003 to 2012 were analyzed. We used logistic regression models to assess how surgeon specific attributes affected the way that upper tract stones were treated. Cases were identified by the CPT code of the corresponding procedure.

Results:

A total of 6,620 urologists in 3 certification groups recorded case logs, including 2,275 for initial certification, 2,381 for first recertification and 1,964 for second recertification. A total of 441,162 procedures were logged, of which 54.2% were ureteroscopy, 41.3% were shock wave lithotripsy and 4.5% were percutaneous nephrolithotomy. From 2003 to 2013 there was an increase in ureteroscopy from 40.9% to 59.6% and a corresponding decrease in shock wave lithotripsy from 54% to 36.3%. For new urologists ureteroscopy increased from 47.6% to 70.9% of all stones cases logged and for senior clinicians ureteroscopy increased from 40% to 55%. Endourologists performed a significantly higher proportion of percutaneous nephrolithotomies than nonendourologists (10.6% vs 3.69%, p <0.0001) and a significantly smaller proportion of shock wave lithotripsies (34.2% vs 42.2%, p = 0.001).

Conclusions:

Junior and senior clinicians showed a dramatic adoption of endoscopic techniques. Treatment of upper tract calculi is an evolving field and provider specific attributes affect how these stones are treated.

References

  • 1 : Lower pole I: a prospective randomized trial of extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy and percutaneous nephrostolithotomy for lower pole nephrolithiasis-initial results. J Urol2001; 166: 2072. LinkGoogle Scholar
  • 2 : Expanding role of ureteroscopy and laser lithotripsy for treatment of proximal ureteral and intrarenal calculi. Curr Opin Urol2002; 12: 277. Google Scholar
  • 3 : Temporal trends, practice patterns, and treatment outcomes for infected upper urinary tract stones in the United States. Eur Urol2013; 64: 85. Google Scholar
  • 4 : Trends in percutaneous nephrolithotomy use and outcomes in the United States. J Urol2013; 190: 558. LinkGoogle Scholar
  • 5 : Urologic Diseases in America project: urolithiasis. J Urol2005; 173: 848. LinkGoogle Scholar
  • 6 : 2007 guideline for the management of ureteral calculi. J Urol2007; 178: 2418. LinkGoogle Scholar
  • 7 : Simultaneous comparison of multiple treatments: combining direct and indirect evidence. BMJ2005; 331: 897. Google Scholar
  • 8 Information for Applicants for Recertification. Charlottesville: American Board of Urology, Inc.2011: 36. Google Scholar
  • 9 : Treatment of ureteral and renal stones: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized, controlled trials. J Urol2012; 188: 130. LinkGoogle Scholar
  • 10 : Extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL) versus ureteroscopic management for ureteric calculi. Cochrane Database Syst Rev2012; 5: CD006029. Google Scholar
  • 11 : Trends in urological stone disease. BJU Int2012; 109: 1082. Google Scholar
  • 12 : Practice variation in the surgical management of urinary lithiasis. J Urol2011; 186: 146. LinkGoogle Scholar
  • 13 : Contemporary surgical management of upper urinary tract calculi. J Urol2009; 181: 2152. LinkGoogle Scholar
  • 14 : Practice patterns in the treatment of large renal stones. J Endourol2003; 17: 355. Google Scholar
  • 15 : 2007 Guideline for the management of ureteral calculi. Eur Urol2007; 52: 1610. Google Scholar
  • 16 : Factors influencing urologist treatment preference in surgical management of stone disease. Urology2012; 79: 996. Google Scholar
  • 17 : Cost analysis of flexible ureterorenoscopy. BJU Int2004; 93: 1023. Google Scholar
  • 18 : New-generation flexible ureterorenoscopes are more durable than previous ones. Urology2006; 68: 276. Google Scholar
  • 19 : Efficiency and cost of treating proximal ureteral stones: shock wave lithotripsy versus ureteroscopy plus holmium:yttrium-aluminum-garnet laser. Urology2004; 64: 1102. Google Scholar
  • 20 : Comparison between extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy and semirigid ureterorenoscope with holmium:YAG laser lithotripsy for treating large proximal ureteral stones. J Urol2004; 172: 1899. LinkGoogle Scholar
  • 21 : Comparative effectiveness of shock wave lithotripsy and ureteroscopy for treating patients with kidney stones. JAMA Surg2014; 149: 648. Google Scholar
  • 22 : Shockwave lithotripsy-new concepts and optimizing treatment parameters. Urol Clin North Am2013; 40: 59. Google Scholar
  • 23 : Shock wave technology and application: an update. Eur Urol2011; 59: 784. Google Scholar
  • 24 : Percutaneous nephrolithotomy: an extreme technical makeover for an old technique. Arch Ital Urol Androl2010; 82: 23. Google Scholar
  • 25 : Prospective randomized comparison of a combined ultrasonic and pneumatic lithotrite with a standard ultrasonic lithotrite for percutaneous nephrolithotomy. J Endourol2008; 22: 285. Google Scholar