Classification and Standardized Reporting of Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy (PCNL): International Alliance of Urolithiasis (IAU) consensus statements.

S. Choong, J. J. de la Rosette, J. Denstedt, G. Zeng, K. Sarıca, G. Mazzon, I. Saltirov, S. K. Pal, M. Agrawal, J. Desai, A. Petřík, N. Buchholz, M. Maroclo, S. Gordon, A. Sridhar
{"title":"Classification and Standardized Reporting of Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy (PCNL): International Alliance of Urolithiasis (IAU) consensus statements.","authors":"S. Choong, J. J. de la Rosette, J. Denstedt, G. Zeng, K. Sarıca, G. Mazzon, I. Saltirov, S. K. Pal, M. Agrawal, J. Desai, A. Petřík, N. Buchholz, M. Maroclo, S. Gordon, A. Sridhar","doi":"10.23736/S0393-2249.20.04107-7","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"BACKGROUND\nTo reach a consensus in the classification and standardized reporting for the different types of PCNLs.\n\n\nMETHODS\nThe RAND/UCLA appropriateness methodology was used to reach a consensus. Thirty-two statements were formulated reviewing the literature on guidelines and consensus on PCNLs, and included procedure specific details, outcome measurements and a classification for PCNLs. Experts were invited to two rounds of input, the first enabled independent modifications of the proposed statements and provided the option to add statements. The second round facilitated scoring of all statements. Each statement was discussed in the third round to decide which statements to include. Any suggestion or disagreement was debated and discussed to reach a consensual agreement.\n\n\nRESULTS\nTwenty-five recommendations were identified to provide standardised reporting of procedure and outcomes. Consensual scoring above 80% were strongly agreed upon by the panel. The top treatment related outcomes were size of sheath used (99.1%) and position for PCNL (93.5%). The highest ranked Outcome Measures included definition of post-operative hospital length of stay (94.4%) and estimated blood loss (93.5%).\n\n\nCONCLUSIONS\nThe consensus statements will be useful to clarify operative technique, in the design of clinical trials and standardized reporting, and presentation of results to compare outcomes of different types of PCNLs.","PeriodicalId":49015,"journal":{"name":"Minerva Urologica E Nefrologica","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"4","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Minerva Urologica E Nefrologica","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.23736/S0393-2249.20.04107-7","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"Medicine","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 4

Abstract

BACKGROUND To reach a consensus in the classification and standardized reporting for the different types of PCNLs. METHODS The RAND/UCLA appropriateness methodology was used to reach a consensus. Thirty-two statements were formulated reviewing the literature on guidelines and consensus on PCNLs, and included procedure specific details, outcome measurements and a classification for PCNLs. Experts were invited to two rounds of input, the first enabled independent modifications of the proposed statements and provided the option to add statements. The second round facilitated scoring of all statements. Each statement was discussed in the third round to decide which statements to include. Any suggestion or disagreement was debated and discussed to reach a consensual agreement. RESULTS Twenty-five recommendations were identified to provide standardised reporting of procedure and outcomes. Consensual scoring above 80% were strongly agreed upon by the panel. The top treatment related outcomes were size of sheath used (99.1%) and position for PCNL (93.5%). The highest ranked Outcome Measures included definition of post-operative hospital length of stay (94.4%) and estimated blood loss (93.5%). CONCLUSIONS The consensus statements will be useful to clarify operative technique, in the design of clinical trials and standardized reporting, and presentation of results to compare outcomes of different types of PCNLs.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
经皮肾镜取石术(PCNL)的分类和标准化报告:国际尿石症联盟(IAU)共识声明。
背景:对不同类型pcnl的分类和标准化报告达成共识。方法采用兰德/加州大学洛杉矶分校适当性方法达成共识。我们对pcnl的指南和共识的文献进行了回顾,并制定了32份声明,包括程序具体细节,结果测量和pcnl的分类。邀请专家进行了两轮输入,第一轮允许对提议的陈述进行独立修改,并提供增加陈述的选项。第二轮为所有发言打分。每个声明都在第三轮中进行了讨论,以决定包括哪些声明。任何建议或分歧都经过辩论和讨论,以达成一致的协议。结果确定了25项建议,以提供标准化的程序和结果报告。共识得分在80%以上得到了小组的强烈同意。与治疗相关的主要结果是鞘的大小(99.1%)和PCNL的位置(93.5%)。排名最高的结局指标包括术后住院时间定义(94.4%)和估计失血量(93.5%)。结论该共识声明有助于明确手术技术、临床试验设计、规范化报告和结果呈现,比较不同类型pcnl的预后。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Minerva Urologica E Nefrologica
Minerva Urologica E Nefrologica UROLOGY & NEPHROLOGY-
CiteScore
5.50
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: The journal Minerva Urologica e Nefrologica publishes scientific papers on nephrology and urology. Manuscripts may be submitted in the form of Minerva opinion editorials, editorial comments, original articles, video illustrated articles, review articles and letters to the Editor.
期刊最新文献
Real-life data on long-term follow-up of patients successfully treated with percutaneous tibial nerve stimulation (PTNS). Identifying tumor-related risk factors for simultaneous adrenalectomy in patients with cT1 - cT2 kidney cancer during robotic assisted laparoscopic radical nephrectomy. A systematic review of nerve-sparing surgery for high-risk prostate cancer. Comparison of outcomes between laparoscopic and robot-assisted partial nephrectomy for complex renal tumors (RENAL score ≥ 7 or maximum tumor size > 4cm): a systematic review and meta-analysis. Totally intracorporeal robotic ileal ureter replacement: focus on surgical technique and outcomes.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1