Browsing by Author "Wollin, Daniel A."

Now showing 1 - 2 of 2
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Salvage Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy: Analysis of Outcomes Following Initial Treatment Failure
    (Elsevier, 2016-04) Borofsky, Michael S.; Wollin, Daniel A.; Reddy, Thanmaya; Shah, Ojas; Assimos, Dean G.; Lingeman, James E.; Department of Urology, IU School of Medicine
    Purpose Percutaneous nephrolithotomy has high potential for morbidity or failure. There are limited data regarding risk factors for failure and to our knowledge no published reports of surgical outcomes in patients with prior failed attempts at percutaneous stone removal. Materials and Methods We identified patients referred to 3 medical centers after prior failed attempts at percutaneous nephrolithotomy. A retrospective chart review was performed to analyze reasons for initial failure and outcomes of salvage percutaneous nephrolithotomy. Outcomes were compared to those in a prospectively maintained database of more than 1,200 patients treated with a primary procedure. Results Salvage percutaneous nephrolithotomy was performed in 31 patients. Unsuitable access to the stone was the reason for failure in 80% of cases. Other reasons included infection, bleeding and inadequate instrument availability in 6.5% of cases each. Compared to patients who underwent primary percutaneous nephrolithotomy those treated with salvage were more likely to have staghorn calculi (61.3% vs 31.4%, p <0.01) and a larger maximum stone diameter (3.7 vs 2.5 cm, p <0.01), and require a secondary procedure (65.5% vs 42.1%, p <0.01). There was no significant difference between the cohorts in the remaining demographics or perioperative outcomes. All patients were deemed completely stone free except one who elected observation for a 3 mm nonobstructing fragment. Conclusions Despite the more challenging nature and prior unsuccessful attempts at treatment, the outcomes of salvage percutaneous nephrolithotomy were no different from those of primary percutaneous nephrolithotomy when performed by experienced surgeons.
  • 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.