Development of a Surgical Decision Aid for Patients with Nephrolithiasis: Shockwave Lithotripsy vs Ureteroscopy.

Introduction and Objective: Shared decision making is recommended to guide medical/surgical treatment strategies. We aimed at developing a surgical decision aid (SDA) facilitating decision making between ureteroscopy (URS) or shockwave lithotripsy (SWL) in patients with symptomatic nephrolithiasis. Methods: The SDA scope was identified through discussions with patients and urologists in the Michigan Urological Surgery Improvement Collaborative (MUSIC). A steering committee of patient advocates, MUSIC coordinating center, content experts, biostatisticians, and urologists was formed. Content domains were assessed through best available evidence and content experts. For content validation we anonymously surveyed 35 MUSIC urologists. Content validity ratios (CVR), numeric value indicating degree of expert validity, were calculated. Face validation interviews were conducted with patient advocates. Results: The SDA prototype using descriptive plain language and pictorial information was designed for nephrolithiasis patients, candidates for SWL or URS. It first provides patients procedural education whereas the second section informs urologists of patient goals. Six content domains were chosen: anesthesia type, effectiveness, number of procedures, risk, pain, and recovery. Overall, 91.4% and 85.7% of MUSIC urologists indicated that each section accomplished their goals, respectively. Anesthesia received an unacceptable CVR. High levels of face validation overall were reported with unacceptable scoring for anesthesia and recovery. Conclusions: We developed an SDA facilitating treatment choice between SWL and URS with promising content and face validity. Agreement and contradiction between anesthesia type and recovery validation results indicate the importance of shared decision making and the need for a validated SDA. Future work should focus on the SDAs value and opportunities for refinement in practice.

Overtreatment and Underutilization of Watchful Waiting in Men With Limited Life Expectancy: An Analysis of the Michigan Urological Surgery Improvement Collaborative Registry.

OBJECTIVE: To determine rates of watchful waiting (WW) vs treatment in prostate cancer (PCa) and limited life expectancy (LE) and assess determinants of management. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients diagnosed with PCa between 2012 and 2018 with <10 years LE were identified from the Michigan Urologic Surgery Improvement Collaborative registry. Multinomial logistic regression models were used to identify factors associated with management choice among NCCN low-risk PCa patients. Data from high-volume practices were analyzed to understand practice variation. RESULTS: Total 2393 patients were included. Overall, WW was performed in 8.1% compared to 23.3%, 25%, 11.2%, and 3.6% who underwent AS, radiation (XRT), prostatectomy (RP), and brachytherapy (BT), respectively. In men with NCCN low-risk disease (n = 358), WW was performed in 15.1%, compared to AS (69.3%), XRT (4.2%), RP (6.7%), and BT (2.5%). There was wide variation in management among practices in low-risk men; WW (6%-35%), AS (44%-81%), and definitive treatment (0%-30%). Older age was associated with less likelihood of undergoing AS vs WW (odds ratio [OR] 0.88, P < .001) or treatment vs WW (OR 0.83, P < .0001). Presence of ≥cT2 disease (OR 8.55, P = .014) and greater number of positive biopsy cores (OR 1.41, P = .014) was associated with greater likelihood of treatment vs WW and Charlson comorbidity score of 1 vs 0 (OR 0.23, P = .043) was associated with less likelihood of treatment vs WW. CONCLUSION: Wide practice level variation exists in management for patients with low- and favorable-risk PCa and <10-year LE. Utilization of WW is poor, suggesting overtreatment in men who will experience little benefit.

Urolithiasis: the influence of stone size on management.

BACKGROUND: A 37-year-old female presented with pain in the right lower lateral abdomen. She had experienced a ureteral stone in the past. INVESTIGATIONS: Serum electrolyte levels, blood urea nitrogen, serum creatinine level, full blood count, urinalysis, CT. DIAGNOSIS: Urolithiasis. MANAGEMENT: Cystoscopy and right retrograde pyelogram.