Urolithiasis
Conditions
Keywords
Urolithiasis, ESWL, RIRS, flexible ureteroscopy, PCNL, FANS, flexible and navigable suction ureteral access sheath, intrarenal pressure, IRP, intrarenal temperature, IRT
Brief summary
This is an international prospective data registry to assess the treatment outcomes and complications of different treatment approaches for different surgical treatment of urolithiasis.
Detailed description
Renal stone is a common condition, and many patients suffered from recurrent diseases and required multiple interventions in their lifetime. Currently, there are many treatment options available for stone treatment, including shockwave lithotripsy, ureteroscopy, percutaneous nephrolithotomy etc. Different treatment approaches will result in different treatment successful rate and also potential adverse effects to patients. The main challenge for stone management is the decision on the best treatment approach for individual stone of each patient. This is because for the same type of stone (such as lower caliceal stone or upper ureteric stone), different surgical treatment could be applied. The decision will depend on various patients (such as age, premorbid etc.) and stone factors (such as size, density etc) and also patients' preference. New advances in technology have improved treatment outcomes for urolithiasis, such as single use flexible ureteroscopes, flexible and navigable ureteral access sheaths (FANS), direct in scope suction (DISS), intrarenal pressure (IRP) and intrarenal temperature (IRT) monitoring devices, new lasers and pulse modulation, etc. Therefore, in order to have more information to guide treatment decision during discussion with patients, a prospective data registry is created to assess the treatment outcomes and complications of different treatment approaches in our hospital clusters. This information will be important for audit, treatment comparison and also patient education.
Interventions
None listed
Sponsors
Chinese University of Hong Kong
Study design
Observational model
COHORT
Time perspective
PROSPECTIVE
Eligibility
Sex/Gender
ALL
Age
18 Years to No maximum
Healthy volunteers
No
Inclusion criteria
* Patient at the age of 18 or above
Exclusion criteria
* Patient is unable to give consent
Design outcomes
Primary
| Measure | Time frame | Description |
|---|---|---|
| Target Stone status | postoperative, at 1 and/or 3 months | stone free rate |
Secondary
| Measure | Time frame | Description |
|---|---|---|
| Intraoperative parameters | intraoperative | Including irrigation and suction and laser settings and devices, laser consumption and efficacy, fluoroscopy dosage and time, equipment (ureteral access sheath size and lengths, ureteroscopy sizes, stone basket) utilised; exit strategy; intraoperative complications if noted; ergonomics |
| Treatment related complication | Thirty days after the operation | The 30-day complications will be graded according to the Clavien-Dindo classification |
| Recurrence of stone | At 12 months | Stone recurrence rate |
| QOL and pain scores | preoperative, postoperative on day 0 and at follow up | Pain VAS scores and QOL assessment |
Countries
Hong Kong
Contacts
Primary ContactChi Fai NG, MD
Outcome results
None listed