Selçuk Güven, Mehmet Giray Sönmez, Bhaskar Kumar Somani, Ali Serdar Gözen, Kemal Sarica, Juan Gómez Rivas, Udo Nagele, Theodoros Tokas
{"title":"整个欧洲肾绞痛的当前管理及其对欧洲泌尿外科协会尿石症指南的遵守:来自欧洲泌尿外科技术部门,欧洲尿石症部门,年轻学术泌尿科研究小组的调查。","authors":"Selçuk Güven, Mehmet Giray Sönmez, Bhaskar Kumar Somani, Ali Serdar Gözen, Kemal Sarica, Juan Gómez Rivas, Udo Nagele, Theodoros Tokas","doi":"10.5173/ceju.2022.0046","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Renal colic due to ureteral stones represents the primary acute condition in urology. Although guideline recommendations are available the institution, urologist, and patient preferences in diagnosis and treatment may differ. We aimed to evaluate the adherence of different European countries to the European Association of Urology (EAU) guidelines of urolithiasis and demonstrate trends in diagnostic and treatment approaches.</p><p><strong>Material and methods: </strong>We used a survey including 33 questions clustered in four sections. The survey was circulated to the representatives of the main urological centers in Europe using the European Section of Uro-technology (ESUT), the European Section of Urolithiasis (EULIS), the Young Academic Urologists (YAU), and the European Urology Residents Education Programme (EUREP) mailing lists. The first section included participant and institution demographics, the second assessed the common diagnostic and treatment pathways, the third discussed the advantages and disadvantages of treatment strategies and the fourth investigated treatment preferences in different clinical scenarios. A descriptive analysis was performed.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Of all participants, 84.21% stated that their departments follow specific guidelines, with no significant differences between institutions (p = 0.18). Preferred treatment practice difference in the case scenarios was significantly influenced by the Department bed capacities (p = 0.01), and complications varied between institutions (p = 0.02). Interestingly, 37-45% of participants were unaware of the different treatment costs.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Although urologists generally decide according to local or international guidelines when approaching renal colic patients, there are deviations in clinical practice due to 'doctor preference' and 'bed availability'. Many urologists are unaware of treatment costs.</p>","PeriodicalId":9744,"journal":{"name":"Central European Journal of Urology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.4000,"publicationDate":"2022-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub/pmc/oa_pdf/df/5a/CEJU-75-0046.PMC9326703.pdf","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Current management of renal colic across Europe and its compliance to the European Association of Urology Guidelines on Urolithiasis: a survey from the European Section of Uro-technology, European Section of Urolithiasis, Young Academic Urologists study groups.\",\"authors\":\"Selçuk Güven, Mehmet Giray Sönmez, Bhaskar Kumar Somani, Ali Serdar Gözen, Kemal Sarica, Juan Gómez Rivas, Udo Nagele, Theodoros Tokas\",\"doi\":\"10.5173/ceju.2022.0046\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Renal colic due to ureteral stones represents the primary acute condition in urology. Although guideline recommendations are available the institution, urologist, and patient preferences in diagnosis and treatment may differ. We aimed to evaluate the adherence of different European countries to the European Association of Urology (EAU) guidelines of urolithiasis and demonstrate trends in diagnostic and treatment approaches.</p><p><strong>Material and methods: </strong>We used a survey including 33 questions clustered in four sections. The survey was circulated to the representatives of the main urological centers in Europe using the European Section of Uro-technology (ESUT), the European Section of Urolithiasis (EULIS), the Young Academic Urologists (YAU), and the European Urology Residents Education Programme (EUREP) mailing lists. The first section included participant and institution demographics, the second assessed the common diagnostic and treatment pathways, the third discussed the advantages and disadvantages of treatment strategies and the fourth investigated treatment preferences in different clinical scenarios. A descriptive analysis was performed.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Of all participants, 84.21% stated that their departments follow specific guidelines, with no significant differences between institutions (p = 0.18). Preferred treatment practice difference in the case scenarios was significantly influenced by the Department bed capacities (p = 0.01), and complications varied between institutions (p = 0.02). Interestingly, 37-45% of participants were unaware of the different treatment costs.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Although urologists generally decide according to local or international guidelines when approaching renal colic patients, there are deviations in clinical practice due to 'doctor preference' and 'bed availability'. Many urologists are unaware of treatment costs.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":9744,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Central European Journal of Urology\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub/pmc/oa_pdf/df/5a/CEJU-75-0046.PMC9326703.pdf\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Central European Journal of Urology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.5173/ceju.2022.0046\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2022/5/5 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"UROLOGY & NEPHROLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Central European Journal of Urology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5173/ceju.2022.0046","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2022/5/5 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"UROLOGY & NEPHROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
Current management of renal colic across Europe and its compliance to the European Association of Urology Guidelines on Urolithiasis: a survey from the European Section of Uro-technology, European Section of Urolithiasis, Young Academic Urologists study groups.
Introduction: Renal colic due to ureteral stones represents the primary acute condition in urology. Although guideline recommendations are available the institution, urologist, and patient preferences in diagnosis and treatment may differ. We aimed to evaluate the adherence of different European countries to the European Association of Urology (EAU) guidelines of urolithiasis and demonstrate trends in diagnostic and treatment approaches.
Material and methods: We used a survey including 33 questions clustered in four sections. The survey was circulated to the representatives of the main urological centers in Europe using the European Section of Uro-technology (ESUT), the European Section of Urolithiasis (EULIS), the Young Academic Urologists (YAU), and the European Urology Residents Education Programme (EUREP) mailing lists. The first section included participant and institution demographics, the second assessed the common diagnostic and treatment pathways, the third discussed the advantages and disadvantages of treatment strategies and the fourth investigated treatment preferences in different clinical scenarios. A descriptive analysis was performed.
Results: Of all participants, 84.21% stated that their departments follow specific guidelines, with no significant differences between institutions (p = 0.18). Preferred treatment practice difference in the case scenarios was significantly influenced by the Department bed capacities (p = 0.01), and complications varied between institutions (p = 0.02). Interestingly, 37-45% of participants were unaware of the different treatment costs.
Conclusions: Although urologists generally decide according to local or international guidelines when approaching renal colic patients, there are deviations in clinical practice due to 'doctor preference' and 'bed availability'. Many urologists are unaware of treatment costs.