Between a rock and a hard place

the uncertainties in managing renal stones

Research output: Contribution to journalComment/debate

1 Citation (Scopus)

Abstract

The management of renal calculi has evolved over the last few decades due to technological advances. Treatment options include shock wave lithotripsy, percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL), or retrograde intrarenal surgery (RIRS), with the choice of intervention guided by stone location, size, composition, and anatomic factors [1], along with the availability of technical expertise and equipment. However there is considerable uncertainty regarding how these interventions compare with each other, a fact underlined by current clinical practice guidelines [1]. The systematic review and meta-analysis by De et al. [2] in this month's issue of European Urology represents a welcome attempt to clarify some of the uncertainties regarding PCNL and RIRS for the treatment of renal stones.
Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)138-139; discussion 140-1
JournalEuropean Urology
Volume67
Issue number1
Early online date31 Jul 2014
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - Jan 2015

Fingerprint

Percutaneous Nephrostomy
Uncertainty
Professional Competence
Kidney
Kidney Calculi
Lithotripsy
Urology
Practice Guidelines
Meta-Analysis
Equipment and Supplies
Therapeutics

Keywords

  • Renal Stones
  • Management

Cite this

Between a rock and a hard place : the uncertainties in managing renal stones. / Lam, Thomas B L; McClinton, Sam.

In: European Urology, Vol. 67, No. 1, 01.2015, p. 138-139; discussion 140-1.

Research output: Contribution to journalComment/debate

@article{a651013e2b514ece990bd06f39b653f5,
title = "Between a rock and a hard place: the uncertainties in managing renal stones",
abstract = "The management of renal calculi has evolved over the last few decades due to technological advances. Treatment options include shock wave lithotripsy, percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL), or retrograde intrarenal surgery (RIRS), with the choice of intervention guided by stone location, size, composition, and anatomic factors [1], along with the availability of technical expertise and equipment. However there is considerable uncertainty regarding how these interventions compare with each other, a fact underlined by current clinical practice guidelines [1]. The systematic review and meta-analysis by De et al. [2] in this month's issue of European Urology represents a welcome attempt to clarify some of the uncertainties regarding PCNL and RIRS for the treatment of renal stones.",
keywords = "Renal Stones, Management",
author = "Lam, {Thomas B L} and Sam McClinton",
year = "2015",
month = "1",
doi = "10.1016/j.eururo.2014.07.016",
language = "English",
volume = "67",
pages = "138--139; discussion 140--1",
journal = "European Urology",
issn = "0302-2838",
publisher = "Elsevier",
number = "1",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Between a rock and a hard place

T2 - the uncertainties in managing renal stones

AU - Lam, Thomas B L

AU - McClinton, Sam

PY - 2015/1

Y1 - 2015/1

N2 - The management of renal calculi has evolved over the last few decades due to technological advances. Treatment options include shock wave lithotripsy, percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL), or retrograde intrarenal surgery (RIRS), with the choice of intervention guided by stone location, size, composition, and anatomic factors [1], along with the availability of technical expertise and equipment. However there is considerable uncertainty regarding how these interventions compare with each other, a fact underlined by current clinical practice guidelines [1]. The systematic review and meta-analysis by De et al. [2] in this month's issue of European Urology represents a welcome attempt to clarify some of the uncertainties regarding PCNL and RIRS for the treatment of renal stones.

AB - The management of renal calculi has evolved over the last few decades due to technological advances. Treatment options include shock wave lithotripsy, percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL), or retrograde intrarenal surgery (RIRS), with the choice of intervention guided by stone location, size, composition, and anatomic factors [1], along with the availability of technical expertise and equipment. However there is considerable uncertainty regarding how these interventions compare with each other, a fact underlined by current clinical practice guidelines [1]. The systematic review and meta-analysis by De et al. [2] in this month's issue of European Urology represents a welcome attempt to clarify some of the uncertainties regarding PCNL and RIRS for the treatment of renal stones.

KW - Renal Stones

KW - Management

U2 - 10.1016/j.eururo.2014.07.016

DO - 10.1016/j.eururo.2014.07.016

M3 - Comment/debate

VL - 67

SP - 138-139; discussion 140-1

JO - European Urology

JF - European Urology

SN - 0302-2838

IS - 1

ER -