Actual clinical practice pattern in SWL after COVID-19 era: a critical evaluation from different aspects.
COVID-19 impact
Clinical practice patterns
SWL
Survey
Journal
Urolithiasis
ISSN: 2194-7236
Titre abrégé: Urolithiasis
Pays: Germany
ID NLM: 101602699
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
01 Nov 2024
01 Nov 2024
Historique:
received:
26
07
2024
accepted:
09
10
2024
medline:
1
11
2024
pubmed:
1
11
2024
entrez:
1
11
2024
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
To outline the current status of Shock Wave Lithotripsy (SWL) in stone treatment and the changes in the mode of application after the COVID-19 pandemic along with critical factors affecting the clinical practice of this particular procedure. This study targeted national and international urology experts who could share and contribute their experiences and perspectives on SWL practices after COVID-19 era. Approximately 650 urology specialists were invited to participate in the survey based study via Google Forms. Participation was voluntary and 398 of the invited participants completed the survey, yielding an acceptable response rate of approximately 61.23%. This survey highlights significant findings that shed light on the changes in clinical SWL applications. Nearly half of SWL procedures are performed by technicians or nurses instead of experienced urologists, potentially affecting the proper application and outcomes of the procedure. SWL seemed to be applied on a guideline (GL) indications based manner by the majority of the participants. Fluoroscopy remains still as the most commonly used method for radiological assessment, underscoring the necessity to teach sonography applications to younger urologists. Key reasons for the limited clinical application of SWL include the absence of lithotripters in the departments, high lithotriptor costs and significantly lower reimbursement rates compared to PNL and fURS modalities. Finally, an increase in SWL utilization rates has been observed post-COVID-19, highlighting its certain advantages realized during this period. These findings provide important insights into the role of SWL in stone treatment and the main factors influencing its clinical application practices. Although the popularity of SWL in the management of urinary stones is being stated to decline particularly in the last two decades, data obtained in this survey emphasized well that it is still a viable option especially for stones smaller than 15 mm. Our findings highlight the enduring relevance of SWL in contemporary stone therapy protocols in the context of COVID-19, where outpatient, non-invasive procedures are preferred. In addition to the consideration of certain factors affecting the rate of its application in clinical practice, to achieve high success rates with minimal complications in SWL, strategic patient selection and adherence to procedure guidelines seem to be crucial.
Identifiants
pubmed: 39485568
doi: 10.1007/s00240-024-01650-8
pii: 10.1007/s00240-024-01650-8
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
155Informations de copyright
© 2024. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature.
Références
Schmiedt E, Chaussy C (1984) Extracorporeal shock-wave lithotripsy (ESWL) of kidney and ureteric stones. Int Urol Nephrol 16(4):273–283. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02081861
doi: 10.1007/BF02081861
pubmed: 6336042
Türk C, Neisius AA, Petrik A, Seitz C, Skolarikos KTA, Donaldson JF, Grivas N (2018) EAU guidelines on urolithiasis. Europ Assoc Urol 32:158
Assimos D, Krambeck A, Miller NL et al (2016) Surgical management of stones: American urological association/endourological society guideline. PART II J Urol 196(4):1161–1169. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2016.05.091
doi: 10.1016/j.juro.2016.05.091
pubmed: 27238615
Lantz AG, McKay J, Ordon M, Pace KT, Monga M, Honey RJ (2016) Shockwave lithotripsy practice pattern variations among and between american and canadian urologists in support of guidelines. J Endourol 30(8):918–922. https://doi.org/10.1089/end.2016.0153
doi: 10.1089/end.2016.0153
pubmed: 27246189
Yildirim K, Olcucu MT, Colak ME (2018) Trends in the treatment of urinary stone disease in Turkey. PeerJ 6:e5390. https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj.5390
doi: 10.7717/peerj.5390
pubmed: 30083475
pmcid: 6074772
Ates F, Zor M, Yılmaz O et al (2016) Management behaviors of the urology practitioners to the small lower calyceal stones: the results of a web-based survey. Urolithiasis 44(3):277–281. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00240-015-0825-x
doi: 10.1007/s00240-015-0825-x
pubmed: 26754407
Proietti S, Somani BK, Pietropaolo A et al (2018) Italian endourological panorama: results from a national survey. Central European J Urol 71(2):190–195. https://doi.org/10.5173/ceju.2018.1623
doi: 10.5173/ceju.2018.1623
Sharma NL, Alexander CE, Grout E, Turney BW (2017) Shock-wave lithotripsy: variance within UK practice. Urolithiasis 45(2):193–201. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00240-016-0886-5
doi: 10.1007/s00240-016-0886-5
pubmed: 27216432
Li K, Lin T, Zhang CE, al, (2013) Optimal frequency of shock wave lithotripsy in urolithiasis treatment: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. J Urol 190(4):1260–1267. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2013.03.075
doi: 10.1016/j.juro.2013.03.075
pubmed: 23538240
Semins MJ, Trock BJ, Matlaga BR (2008) The effect of shock wave rate on the outcome of shock wave lithotripsy: a meta-analysis. J Urol 179(1):194–197. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2007.08.173
doi: 10.1016/j.juro.2007.08.173
pubmed: 18001796
Koo V, Beattie I, Young M (2010) Improved cost-effectiveness and efficiency with a slower shockwave delivery rate. BJU Int 105(5):692–696. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1464-410X.2009.08919.x
doi: 10.1111/j.1464-410X.2009.08919.x
pubmed: 19888982
Pishchalnikov YA, Neucks JS, VonDerHaar RJ, Pishchalnikova IV, Williams JC Jr, McAteer JA (2006) Air pockets trapped during routine coupling in dry head lithotripsy can significantly decrease the delivery of shock wave energy. J Urol 176(6 Pt 1):2706–2710. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2006.07.149
doi: 10.1016/j.juro.2006.07.149
pubmed: 17085200
pmcid: 2435067
Jain A, Shah TK (2007) Effect of air bubbles in the coupling medium on efficacy of extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy. Eur Urol 51(6):1680–1687. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2006.10.049
doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2006.10.049
pubmed: 17112655
Kamel M, Salem EA, Maarouf A, Abdalla M, Ragab A, Shahin AM (2015) Supine transgluteal vs prone position in extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy of distal ureteric stones. Urology 85(1):51–54. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urology.2014.08.033
doi: 10.1016/j.urology.2014.08.033
pubmed: 25440820
Galli R, Sighinolfi MC, Micali S, Martorana E, Rosa M, Mofferdin A, Bianchi G (2017) Advantages of the supine transgluteal approach for distal ureteral stone extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy: outcomes based on CT characteristics. Minerva Urol E Nefrol Italian J Urol Nephrol 69(2):189–194. https://doi.org/10.23736/S0393-2249.16.02741-7
doi: 10.23736/S0393-2249.16.02741-7
Choo MS, Han JH, Kim JK, Shin TY, Lee WK, Lee SK, Lee SH (2018) Author correction to: the transgluteal approach to shockwave lithotripsy to treat distal ureter stones: a prospective, randomized, and multicenter study. World J Urol 36(8):1307. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-018-2289-4
doi: 10.1007/s00345-018-2289-4
pubmed: 29644410