Browsing by Author "Traxer, Olivier"

Now showing 1 - 2 of 2
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    The Uniform grading tooL for flexIble ureterorenoscoPes (TULIP-tool): a Delphi consensus project on standardised evaluation of flexible ureterorenoscopes
    (Wiley, 2023) Henderickx, Michaël M. E. L.; Hendriks, Nora; Baard, Joyce; Wiseman, Oliver J.; Scotland, Kymora B.; Somani, Bhaskar K.; Şener, Tarik E.; Emiliani, Esteban; Dragos, Laurian B.; Villa, Luca; Talso, Michele; Hamri, Saeed Bin; Proietti, Silvia; Doizi, Steeve; Traxer, Olivier; Chew, Ben H.; Eisner, Brian H.; Monga, Manoj; Hsi, Ryan S.; Stern, Karen L.; Leavitt, David A.; Rivera, Marcelino; Wollin, Daniel A.; Borofsky, Michael; Canvasser, Noah E.; Ingimarsson, Johann P.; El Tayeb, Marawan M.; Bhojani, Naeem; Gadzhiev, Nariman; Tailly, Thomas; Durutovic, Otas; Nagele, Udo; Skolarikos, Andreas; Schout, Barbara M. A.; Beerlage, Harrie P.; Pelger, Rob C. M.; Kamphuis, Guido M.; Urology, School of Medicine
    Objective: To develop a standardised tool to evaluate flexible ureterorenoscopes (fURS). Materials and methods: A three-stage consensus building approach based on the modified Delphi technique was performed under guidance of a steering group. First, scope- and user-related parameters used to evaluate fURS were identified through a systematic scoping review. Then, the main categories and subcategories were defined, and the expert panel was selected. Finally, a two-step modified Delphi consensus project was conducted to firstly obtain consensus on the relevance and exact definition of each (sub)category necessary to evaluate fURS, and secondly on the evaluation method (setting, used tools and unit of outcome) of those (sub)categories. Consensus was reached at a predefined threshold of 80% high agreement. Results: The panel consisted of 30 experts in the field of endourology. The first step of the modified Delphi consensus project consisted of two questionnaires with a response rate of 97% (n = 29) for both. Consensus was reached for the relevance and definition of six main categories and 12 subcategories. The second step consisted of three questionnaires (response rate of 90%, 97% and 100%, respectively). Consensus was reached on the method of measurement for all (sub)categories. Conclusion: This modified Delphi consensus project reached consensus on a standardised grading tool for the evaluation of fURS - The Uniform grading tooL for flexIble ureterorenoscoPes (TULIP) tool. This is a first step in creating uniformity in this field of research to facilitate future comparison of outcomes of the functionality and handling of fURS.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Urine and stone analysis for the investigation of the renal stone former: a consensus conference
    (SpringerLink, 2021-02) Williams, James C., Jr.; Gambaro, Giovanni; Rodgers, Allen; Asplin, John; Bonny, Olivier; Costa-Bauzá, Antonia; Ferraro, Pietro Manuel; Fogazzi, Giovanni; Fuster, Daniel G.; Goldfarb, David S.; Grases, Félix; Heilberg, Ita P.; Kok, Dik; Letavernier, Emmanuel; Lippi, Giuseppe; Marangella, Martino; Nouvenne, Antonio; Petrarulo, Michele; Siener, Roswitha; Tiselius, Hans-Göran; Traxer, Olivier; Trinchieri, Alberto; Croppi, Emanuele; Robertson, William G.; Anatomy and Cell Biology, School of Medicine
    The Consensus Group deliberated on a number of questions concerning urine and stone analysis over a period of months, and then met to develop consensus. The Group concluded that analyses of urine and stones should be routine in the diagnosis and treatment of urinary stone diseases. At present, the 24-h urine is the most useful type of urine collection, and accepted methods for analysis are described. Patient education is also important for obtaining a proper urine sample. Graphical methods for reporting urine analysis results can be helpful both for the physician and for educating the patient as to proper dietary changes that could be beneficial. Proper analysis of stones is also essential for diagnosis and management of patients. The Consensus Group also agreed that research has shown that evaluation of urinary crystals could be very valuable, but the Group also recognizes that existing methods for assessment of crystalluria do not allow this to be part of stone treatment in many places.