Abstract
IntroductionIn this study, a survey was prepared for urologists that asked about their primary choice of treatment for urolithiasis in daily practice and their answers were evaluated.MethodsThe survey was prepared on the Google Docs website and it was sent to 1,016 urologists via email with 752 confirmed deliveries. In addition to the demographic questions about each participant’s age, gender, and institution, the survey presented case scenarios focusing on their preferred treatment modalities for distal ureteric, proximal ureteric, and renal calculi. The participating urologists were divided into two groups according to the frequency that they treat urolithiasis patients.ResultsOf the 752 surveys delivered, 211 urologists (28.05%) responded and 204 answered all questions. According to the results, there were no significant differences between the treatment approaches and the other localizations, but there was a statistically significant difference for treatment approaches to lower pole stones between two groups. In response to the question of which stone treatment method was used less frequently, 124 (60.7%) participants answered that they used shock wave lithotripsy less in the last 10 years.ConclusionThe present study has shown that while the management of renal and ureteric calculi by Turkish urologists is highly varied, the overall treatment patterns are in accordance with the European Association of Urology guidelines. However, similar to the global trend extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy is less preferred by Turkish urologists.
Highlights
In this study, a survey was prepared for urologists that asked about their primary choice of treatment for urolithiasis in daily practice and their answers were evaluated
In the 1970s, percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PNL) was the most popular method used in the endourology practice
It is surprising that urologists who deal with more stone disease in their current practice prefer flexible URS or PNL to shock wave lithotripsy (SWL) as the first choice in lower pole stones
Summary
New technological developments in endourology have resulted in dramatic changes in the management of stone diseases (Canes & Desai, 2008; Dede et al, 2015; Lee & Bariol, 2011; Resorlu et al, 2014). Stone diseases have reaped more benefits from technological advances than the other areas of urology. In spite of the clear benefits of the noninvasive methods for stone removal, like SWL, there seems to be a present trend in favor of endourology (Oberlin et al, 2015; Rassweiler et al, 2013, 2014; Rosa et al, 2013; Schnabel et al, 2015). New technologies, which include the miniaturization of instruments and the improvement of laser lithotripters, have attracted urologists who normally favor surgery. There is a trend for less use of SWL according to the literature, still recommended by European Association of Urology (EAU) guidelines (Klein et al, 2018; Lorber et al, 2010). We prepared a survey for urologists in which we questioned their preferences for a first-choice stone treatment in daily practice
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
