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

Basit Öğe Kaydı
dc.contributor.authorGuven, Selcuk
dc.contributor.authorSonmez, Mehmet Giray
dc.contributor.authorSomani, Bhaskar Kumar
dc.contributor.authorGoezen, Ali Serdar
dc.contributor.authorSarica, Kemal
dc.contributor.authorGomez Rivas, Juan
dc.contributor.authorNagele, Udo
dc.date.accessioned2024-02-23T14:41:21Z
dc.date.available2024-02-23T14:41:21Z
dc.date.issued2022
dc.departmentNEÜen_US
dc.description.abstractIntroduction 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.en_US
dc.identifier.doi10.5173/ceju.2022.0046
dc.identifier.endpage190en_US
dc.identifier.issn2080-4806
dc.identifier.issn2080-4873
dc.identifier.issue2en_US
dc.identifier.pmid35937652en_US
dc.identifier.scopus2-s2.0-85135387944en_US
dc.identifier.scopusqualityQ3en_US
dc.identifier.startpage182en_US
dc.identifier.urihttps://doi.org/10.5173/ceju.2022.0046
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12452/16820
dc.identifier.volume75en_US
dc.identifier.wosWOS:001010060900008en_US
dc.indekslendigikaynakWeb of Scienceen_US
dc.indekslendigikaynakScopusen_US
dc.indekslendigikaynakPubMeden_US
dc.language.isoenen_US
dc.publisherPolish Urological Assocen_US
dc.relation.ispartofCentral European Journal Of Urologyen_US
dc.relation.publicationcategoryMakale - Uluslararası Hakemli Dergi - Kurum Öğretim Elemanıen_US
dc.rightsinfo:eu-repo/semantics/openAccessen_US
dc.subjectRenal Colicen_US
dc.subjectUrolithiasisen_US
dc.subjectUreteroscopyen_US
dc.subjectExtracorporeal Shock Wave Lithotripsyen_US
dc.subjectCare Surveyen_US
dc.subjectHealthen_US
dc.titleCurrent 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 groupsen_US
dc.typeArticleen_US

Dosyalar

Koleksiyon

WoS İndeksli Yayınlar Koleksiyonu
PubMed İndeksli Yayın Koleksiyonu
Scopus İndeksli Yayınlar Koleksiyonu