Urologists’ opinion on treating asymptomatic stones: Would we treat ourselves as we treat our patients? Survey from European Association of Urology, Young Academic Urologists, Endourology and Urolithiasis working party


Creative Commons License

ŞENER T. E., Tailly T., TANIDIR Y., Keller E. X., Pietropaolo A., Rivas J. G., ...Daha Fazla

Turkish Journal of Medical Sciences, cilt.54, sa.1, ss.185-193, 2024 (SCI-Expanded) identifier

  • Yayın Türü: Makale / Tam Makale
  • Cilt numarası: 54 Sayı: 1
  • Basım Tarihi: 2024
  • Doi Numarası: 10.55730/1300-0144.5779
  • Dergi Adı: Turkish Journal of Medical Sciences
  • Derginin Tarandığı İndeksler: Science Citation Index Expanded (SCI-EXPANDED), Scopus, Academic Search Premier, CAB Abstracts, MEDLINE, Veterinary Science Database, TR DİZİN (ULAKBİM)
  • Sayfa Sayıları: ss.185-193
  • Anahtar Kelimeler: decision making, kidney, survey, ureter, Urolithiasis
  • Marmara Üniversitesi Adresli: Evet

Özet

Background/aim: Management of asymptomatic kidney stones is an ongoing debate with follow-up and treatment guidelines based on low-level evidence. Our aim was to evaluate current management of asymptomatic urinary stones. Materials and methods: A 70-question survey was designed in collaboration with European Association of Urology, Young Academic Urologists, Section of Uro-Technology and Section of Urolithiasis groups and distributed. Responders filled out hypothetical scenarios from 2 perspectives, either as treating physicians, or as patients themselves. Results: A total of 212 (40.01%) responses were obtained. Median responder age was 39 years. 75% of responders were interested in “urolithiasis”. 82.5% had never experienced a renal colic, 89.6% had never undergone urolithiasis treatment. Overall, as the kidney stone scenarios got more complicated, the invasiveness of the treatment preference increased. As “the physician”, responders preferred the conservative option in all situations more than they would choose as “the patient”. For ureteral stones, conservative approach was most preferred for small stones and ureteroscopy became more preferred as the stone size increased. For smaller kidney stones, the most preferred follow-up schedule was 4-6 monthly, whereas for larger and complicated stones it was 0-3 monthly from both perspectives respectively. For all ureteral stone scenarios, 0-4 weekly follow-up was mostly preferred. Interestingly, having had a renal colic was an independent predictor of an interventional approach, whereas having had an intervention was an independent predictor of a conservative approach. Conclusion: Current treatment and follow-up patterns of asymptomatic urinary stones are in agreement with international guidelines on symptomatic stones. In most of the urolithiasis situations urologists chose a conservative approach for their patients compared to what they would prefer for themselves. Conversely, urologists, in the scenarios as “the patient”, would like to have a more frequent follow-up schedule for their stones compared to how they would follow-up their patients.