Is health-related quality of life of patients after single-use flexible ureteroscopy superior to extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy? A randomised prospective study

Decision regret analysis in early URSL vs medical expulsive therapy 1 for ureteric calculi ≤ 1cm

BACKGROUND

The study assesses the decisional regret following Shared Decision-making (SDM) in patients selecting either early ureteroscopic lithotripsy (URSL) or medical expulsive therapy (MET) for ureteric stones ≤ 1 cm, with the aim to evaluate their decisional Conflict, satisfaction, and regret regarding their opted treatment choices.

METHODS

Adults aged more than 18 years with one stone up to 1 cm in either ureter were included. After SDM, the patients were allocated into their opted group viz. URSL or MET. Patients in each group were reassessed at "treatment completion". Cambridge Ureteric Stone PROM (CUSP) questionnaire for HRQoL, Decision Regret Scale and the OPTION scale (SDM) were filled at treatment completion.

FINDINGS

111 patients opted for MET, while 396 patients opted for early URSL. Mean stone size was larger in URSL group (7.16 ± 1.63 mm vs. 5.50 ± 1.89; p < 0.001). Decisional conflict was higher in patients opting for URSL (77.3% vs. 57.7%; p < 0.001). Stone-free rate at four weeks was higher in URSL group (87.1%vs68.5%, p < 0.001). Decisional regret was higher in patients opting for MET (33.24 ± 30.89 vs. 17.26 ± 12.92; p = 0.002). Anxiety, was higher in patients opting for MET (6.94 ± 1.89 vs. 5.85 ± 1.54; p < 0.001). Urinary symptoms and interference in patients' travel plans and work-related activities were more in URSL group (6.21 ± 1.57 vs. 5.59 ± 1.46; p < 0.001 and 6.56 ± 1.59 vs. 6.05 ± 1.72; p < 0.001 respectively).

INTERPRETATION

After SDM, decisional regret is higher in patients opting for MET mainly due protracted treatment duration with increased pain and anxiety during the treatment course and the need for additional procedure for attaining stone clearance and the. Despite higher decisional conflict, a larger proportion of patients opt for early URSL with the aim of avoiding anxiety and achieving early stone clearance.

Measuring quality of life in patients with kidney stone disease: is it the future in endourology?

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Kidney stone disease is recognized to negatively impact quality of life. This pertains to acute episodes, surgical interventions and even during asymptomatic periods. Over time there has been increased attention towards assessing this subjective parameter, including as a determinant of treatment success. Our aim was to evaluate the current status and emerging trends in this field.

RECENT FINDINGS

Patient groups most affected appear to be recurrent stone formers, cystine stone formers, women, younger populations, non-Caucasians and low-income populations. Several stone specific patient reported outcome measures are now available of which, WISQol has been implemented the most in clinical research studies. More invasive interventions such as percutaneous nephrolithotomy impede quality of life to greater extent than alternatives such as shockwave lithotripsy.

SUMMARY

There are certain patient groups who are more vulnerable to the negative impact of kidney stone disease on their quality of life. Urologists can improve patient care by recognizing these particular populations as well as by implemented patient reported outcome measures in their routine clinical practice and when performing research.

Extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL) versus percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL) or retrograde intrarenal surgery (RIRS) for kidney stones

BACKGROUND

Nephrolithiasis is a common urological disease worldwide. Extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL) has been used for the treatment of renal stones since the 1980s, while retrograde intrarenal surgery (RIRS) and percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL) are newer, more invasive treatment modalities that may have higher stone-free rates. The complications of RIRS and PCNL have decreased owing to improvement in surgical techniques and instruments. We re-evaluated the best evidence on this topic in an update of a Cochrane Review first published in 2014.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy compared with percutaneous nephrolithotomy or retrograde intrarenal surgery for treating kidney stones.

SEARCH METHODS

We performed a comprehensive search in CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and ClinicalTrials.gov with no restrictions on language or publication status. The latest search date was 6 December 2022.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs that compared ESWL with PCNL or RIRS for kidney stone treatment.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently classified studies, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias. Our primary outcomes were treatment success rate at three months (defined as residual fragments smaller than 4 mm, or as defined by the study authors), quality of life (QoL), and complications. Our secondary outcomes were retreatment rate, auxiliary procedures rate, and duration of hospital stay. We performed statistical analyses using a random-effects model and independently rated the certainty of evidence using the GRADE approach.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 31 trials involving 3361 participants (3060 participants completed follow-up). Four trials were only available as an abstract. Overall mean age was 46.6 years and overall mean stone size was 13.4 mm. Most participants (93.8%) had kidney stones measuring 20 mm or less, and 68.9% had lower pole stones. ESWL versus PCNL ESWL may have a lower three-month treatment success rate than PCNL (risk ratio [RR] 0.67, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.57 to 0.79; I2 = 87%; 12 studies, 1303 participants; low-certainty evidence). This corresponds to 304 fewer participants per 1000 (397 fewer to 194 fewer) reporting treatment success with ESWL. ESWL may have little or no effect on QoL after treatment compared with PCNL (1 study, 78 participants; low-certainty evidence). ESWL probably leads to fewer complications than PCNL (RR 0.62, 95% CI 0.47 to 0.82; I2 = 18%; 13 studies, 1385 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). This corresponds to 82 fewer participants per 1000 (115 fewer to 39 fewer) having complications after ESWL. ESWL versus RIRS ESWL may have a lower three-month treatment success rate than RIRS (RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.78 to 0.93; I2 = 63%; 13 studies, 1349 participants; low-certainty evidence). This corresponds to 127 fewer participants per 1000 (186 fewer to 59 fewer) reporting treatment success with ESWL. We are very uncertain about QoL after treatment; the evidence is based on three studies (214 participants) that we were unable to pool. We are very uncertain about the difference in complication rates between ESWL and RIRS (RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.63 to 1.36; I2 = 32%; 13 studies, 1305 participants; very low-certainty evidence). This corresponds to nine fewer participants per 1000 (49 fewer to 48 more) having complications after ESWL.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

ESWL compared with PCNL may have lower three-month success rates, may have a similar effect on QoL, and probably leads to fewer complications. ESWL compared with RIRS may have lower three-month success rates, but the evidence on QoL outcomes and complication rates is very uncertain. These findings should provide valuable information to aid shared decision-making between clinicians and people with kidney stones who are undecided about these three options.

Validation of the Italian version of wisconsin stone quality of life (WISQOL): a prospective Italian multicenter study

Urolithiasis is a worldwide spread condition that affects patients' Health-Related Quality of Life (HRQOL), which measurement is an important tool for routine clinical and research practice. Disease-specific HRQOL measures demonstrated to perform better in assessing the effects of specific conditions. A disease-specific questionnaire for kidney stones, the WISQOL, has been validated in different languages, but an Italian version is still missing. Our aim is to produce and validate the Italian version of WISQOL (IT-WISQOL). Patients undergoing any elective treatment for upper urinary tract stones were enrolled. A multi-step process with forward- and back-translation was used to translate WISQOL into Italian. Patients were evaluated within 15 days pre-operatively and then at 30-, 90 days post-operatively and administered both IT-WISQOL and SF-36v2. Post-operative data such as 30 days postoperative complications, late stone-related events, successful status, and stone complexity were collected. Cronbach's α was used to evaluate the internal consistency of IT-WISQOL, while Spearman's rho was used for item and inter-domain correlations and IT-WISQOL with SF-36v2 correlation. We found excellent internal consistency across all domains (α ≥ 0.88), particularly when the total score is considered (α = 0.960). Test-retest reliability showed excellent results for the total questionnaire (Pearson correlation value: 0.85). The Inter-domain association ranged from 0.497 to 0.786. Convergent validity was confirmed by a good correlation with subdomains of the SF-36v2 measures. IT-WISQOL is a reliable tool to measure HRQOL in stone patients. It shows analog characteristics if compared to English WISQOL.

Safety and efficacy of extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy vs. flexible ureteroscopy in the treatment of urinary calculi: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Objective

This study aims to compare the safety and efficacy of extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (SWL) and flexible ureteroscopy lithotripsy (f-URS) in treating urinary tract stones.

Methods

We systematically searched PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane for literature comparing SWL with f-URS. The primary outcomes we focused on were stone-free rate (SFR) and complications; the secondary outcomes were operation time, hospital stay, retreatment rate, number of sessions, and auxiliary procedures rate. We used ReviewManager version 5.4.1 and STATA version 14.2 for meta-analysis.

Results

Seventeen studies with a total of 2,265 patients were included in the meta-analysis, including 1,038 patients in the SWL group and 1,227 patients in the f-URS group. The meta-analysis indicated that patients in the f-URS group had higher SFR than those in the SWL group [odds ratio (OR): 2.00, 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.29-3.12, p = 0.002]. In addition, we found no significant difference in complications (OR: 1.08, 95% CI: 0.85-1.37) between the two treatments. Also, we found that the retreatment rate and the auxiliary procedure rate in the f-URS group were significantly lower than those in the SWL group (OR: 0.08, 95% CI: 0.02-0.24, p < 0.00001; OR: 0.30, 95% CI: 0.11-0.83, p = 0.02). Moreover, the number of sessions in the f-URS group was significantly lower than that in the SWL group [mean difference (MD): -1.96, 95% CI: -1.55 to -0.33, p = 0.003]. However, the operation time and hospital stay in the f-URS group were significantly longer than those in the SWL group (MD: 11.24, 95% CI: 3.51-18.56, p = 0.004; MD: 1.14, 95% CI: 0.85-1.42, p < 0.00001).

Conclusion

For 1-2-cm urinary stones, f-URS can achieve a higher SFR than SWL while having a lower retreatment rate, number of sessions, and auxiliary procedure rate. For urinary stones <1 cm, there was no significant difference in SFR between SWL and f-URS groups. The SWL group has a shorter operative time and hospital stay than the f-URS group.

Decision-making and improvements in health-related quality of life in patients with kidney stones: comparing surgery versus observation using a mixed methods analysis

The experience of patients who choose observation or surgery for kidney stones has not been well established. We compared these patients using qualitative interviews, the Wisconsin Quality of Life questionnaire (WISQOL), and the Cambridge Renal Stone Patient Reported Outcome Measure (CReSP). Adult patients with upper tract urinary calculi for whom observation or intervention were options underwent qualitative interviews at baseline and at 2 months. WISQOL and CReSP were administered at baseline, and at 6–16 weeks post operatively if surgery was selected. Comparisons in patient experiences and quality of life measures were performed between groups. Among 15 patients who opted for surgery and 10 patients who opted for observation, we identified major themes in patient experiences related to context, health care episodes, patient responses, and perceived outcomes. A conceptual framework for the domains of patient experience during kidney stone disease was developed, which can be used by clinicians and patients to shape discussion. Baseline standardized WISQOL and CReSP scores were comparable between groups. In the surgery group, both WISQOL and CReSP scores improved after surgery (WISQOL 58 to 83, higher is better, p = 0.003; CReSP 31 to 23, lower is better, p = 0.009). Patients who underwent surgery for kidney stones reported improvements in quality of life after treatment via WISQOL and CReSP. A conceptual framework was developed for the patient experience of kidney stones which provides a common language for patients and clinicians.

Standardizing perioperative medications to be used in an enhanced recovered after surgery (ERAS) program is feasible in percutaneous nephrolithotomy patients

INTRODUCTION

The objective of this process improvement project was to determine the effect of enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) protocol for percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL) patients with respect to quality of life and pain management in the post-operative recovery period.

METHODS

An electronic-based medical record ERAS orders protocol for PCNL was instituted at an academic medical center in July of 2020. The protocol utilized a pain control regimen designed to minimize opioid medication use post-operatively. We prospectively evaluated PCNL patients' quality of life via the Wisconsin Stone Quality of Life survey (WISQOL) and Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement System (PROMIS) at routine perioperative visits. To assess any opioid reduction benefit of the ERAS protocol, we reviewed an age-matched historical cohort n = 66 (prior to ERAS implementation) to serve as a comparison cohort with respect to opioid usage.

RESULTS

After an inception cohort of 95 patients, 55 ERAS patients remained available for assessment with the WISQOL and PROMIS surveys. In comparison to the non-ERAS cohort, the ERAS cohort represented larger stones, more supine positioning, higher blood loss, shorter hospital stay and more use of access sheath. ERAS patients received a significantly lower amount of opioids compared to non-ERAS patients upon discharge narcotic usage (116.13 morphine milliequivalent (MME) vs. 39.57 MME, p=0.0001). Compared to their pre-operative evaluation, the ERAS cohort had significantly improved quality of life scores at 1 week which sustained through 8 weeks post-operatively. Moreover, pain intensity and pain interference scores were improved at 8 weeks post-operatively for ERAS patients compared to their pre-operative time point.

CONCLUSIONS

We demonstrate that standardizing medications in early efforts towards a PCNL ERAS protocol is feasible and allows for reduced opioid use by patients while achieving early and sustained post-procedure quality of life.