Worldwide survey of flexible ureteroscopy practice: a survey from European Association of Urology sections of young academic urologists and uro-technology groups.
access sheath
endourology
flexible
fragmentation
laser
stone
survey
ureteroscopy
urolithiasis
Journal
Central European journal of urology
ISSN: 2080-4806
Titre abrégé: Cent European J Urol
Pays: Poland
ID NLM: 101587101
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
2019
2019
Historique:
received:
22
09
2019
revised:
24
09
2019
accepted:
09
10
2019
entrez:
5
2
2020
pubmed:
6
2
2020
medline:
6
2
2020
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
To understand the current practice of flexible ureteroscopy (fURS), we conducted a worldwide survey among urologists with a special interest in endourology. A 42-question survey was designed after an initial consultation with European Association of Urology young academic urologists (YAU) and uro-technology (ESUT) groups. This was distributed via the SurveyMonkey A total of 114 completed responses were obtained. A safety guidewire was reportedly used by 84.5% of endourologists, an access sheath was always or almost always used by 71% and a reusable laser fibre was used by two-thirds of respondents. While a combination of dusting and fragmentation was used by 47% as a preferred mode of intra-renal stone treatment, some used dusting (43%) or fragmentation with basketing (10%).Disposable scopes were only used by 40% and three quarters of them used it for challenging cases only. Antibiotic prophylaxis was limited to a single peri-operative dose by two-thirds (67%) of respondents. The procedural time was limited to between 1-2 hours by two-thirds (70%) of respondents and very rarely (7.4%) it exceeded 2 hours. The irrigation method varied between manual pump (46%), mechanical irrigation (22%) or gravity irrigation (27%). Our survey shows a wide variation in the available endourological armamentarium and surgical practice amongst urologists. However, there seems to be a broad agreement in the use of peri-operative antibiotics, access sheath usage, method of stone treatment and the use of post-operative stent.
Identifiants
pubmed: 32015909
doi: 10.5173/ceju.2019.0041
pii: 0041
pmc: PMC6979553
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
393-397Informations de copyright
Copyright by Polish Urological Association.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
The authors declare that there is no conflict of interest from any of the co-authors. No funding was received for this work.
Références
Urology. 2011 Sep;78(3):528-30
pubmed: 21459421
BMC Urol. 2019 Jul 4;19(1):58
pubmed: 31272430
World J Urol. 2019 May 15;:null
pubmed: 31093704
World J Urol. 2017 Nov;35(11):1651-1658
pubmed: 28593477
World J Urol. 2017 Apr;35(4):675-681
pubmed: 27492012
J Endourol. 2016 Feb;30(2):135-45
pubmed: 26415049
World J Urol. 2019 Nov;37(11):2501-2508
pubmed: 30747279
Urol Int. 2017;98(4):391-396
pubmed: 27694759
Urolithiasis. 2019 Aug;47(4):391-394
pubmed: 30132276
Curr Urol Rep. 2018 May 17;19(6):45
pubmed: 29774438
Urolithiasis. 2018 Apr;46(2):129-136
pubmed: 27324264
World J Urol. 2018 Nov;36(11):1783-1793
pubmed: 29730839
J Pediatr Urol. 2019 Aug;15(4):391.e1-391.e7
pubmed: 31182399
J Urol. 2019 Jul;202(1):164-170
pubmed: 30829132
Surg Endosc. 2019 Jun 18;:null
pubmed: 31214807
Minerva Urol Nefrol. 2017 Oct;69(5):421-431
pubmed: 28150482
Cent European J Urol. 2018;71(2):190-195
pubmed: 30038809
Urology. 2019 Jun;128:38-41
pubmed: 30878681
Clin Radiol. 2017 Jan;72(1):11-15
pubmed: 27810168
Ther Adv Urol. 2016 Apr;8(2):142-6
pubmed: 27034726
Urolithiasis. 2014 Feb;42(1):1-7
pubmed: 24374899
Urol Clin North Am. 2019 May;46(2):303-313
pubmed: 30961862