Laser access and utilization preferences for pediatric ureteroscopy: A survey of the Societies of Pediatric Urology

Authors

  • Ray Yong Medical College of Wisconsin
  • Gregory E. Tasian Department of Urology, University of Pennsylvania Perelman School of Medicine; Division of Urology, Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia
  • Kate H. Kraft Department of Urology, University of Michigan
  • William W. Roberts Department of Urology, University of Michigan
  • Adam Maxwell Department of Urology, University of Washington
  • Jonathan S. Ellison Medical College of Wisconsin

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.5489/cuaj.7326

Keywords:

Laser lithotripsy; ureteroscopy; nephrolithiasis; practice patterns

Abstract

Introduction: We sought to evaluate laser access and practice variability for pediatric ureteroscopy (URS) across the Societies of Pediatric Urology (SPU) to identify opportunities and barriers for future technology promulgation and evidence dissemination.

Methods: A 25-question survey was sent electronically to members of the SPU. The questionnaire assessed surgeon and hospital characteristics, treatment preferences based on an index case, and information about available laser units. Descriptive and comparative statistical analyses were performed to assess patterns of care and laser accessibility across the SPU.

Results: A total of 105 of 711 (15%) recipients responded. Seventy-seven respondents (73%) reported laser ownership, which was associated with greater after-hours laser access (87% vs. 13%, p<0.01). Fifty-eight individuals provided additional laser specifications, of whom 21 (36%) used a high-powered laser unit (>60 W). Standard-power lasers were used more frequently in free-standing children’s hospitals, as compared to those working within a larger hospital complex (75% vs. 50%, p=0.049). Variation existed in treatment preferences with respect to dusting (33, 34%), fragmentation (18, 19%), or a hybrid approach (46 respondents, 48%). Stone clearance was the most important consideration irrespective of treatment choice.

Conclusions: Variability in surgical preferences and accessibility to laser units exist across pediatric urologists who perform URS. Laser ownership and access to newer technologies vary across practices and may influence treatment options. Understanding access to laser technology will be important when considering opportunities for surgical optimization to improve patient outcomes through future studies.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Downloads

Published

2021-10-18

How to Cite

Yong, R., Tasian, G. E., Kraft, K. H., Roberts, W. W., Maxwell, A., & Ellison, J. S. (2021). Laser access and utilization preferences for pediatric ureteroscopy: A survey of the Societies of Pediatric Urology. Canadian Urological Association Journal, 16(3), E155–60. https://doi.org/10.5489/cuaj.7326

Issue

Vol. 16 No. 3 (2022): CUAJ March

Section

Original Research

License

You, the Author(s), assign your copyright in and to the Article to the Canadian Urological Association. This means that you may not, without the prior written permission of the CUA:

  • Post the Article on any Web site
  • Translate or authorize a translation of the Article
  • Copy or otherwise reproduce the Article, in any format, beyond what is permitted under Canadian copyright law, or authorize others to do so
  • Copy or otherwise reproduce portions of the Article, including tables and figures, beyond what is permitted under Canadian copyright law, or authorize others to do so.

The CUA encourages use for non-commercial educational purposes and will not unreasonably deny any such permission request.

You retain your moral rights in and to the Article. This means that the CUA may not assert its copyright in such a way that would negatively reflect on your reputation or your right to be associated with the Article.

The CUA also requires you to warrant the following:

  • That you are the Author(s) and sole owner(s), that the Article is original and unpublished and that you have not previously assigned copyright or granted a licence to any other third party;
  • That all individuals who have made a substantive contribution to the article are acknowledged;
  • That the Article does not infringe any proprietary right of any third party and that you have received the permissions necessary to include the work of others in the Article; and
  • That the Article does not libel or violate the privacy rights of any third party.