Vše

Co hledáte?

Vše
Projekty
Výsledky výzkumu
Subjekty

Rychlé hledání

  • Projekty podpořené TA ČR
  • Významné projekty
  • Projekty s nejvyšší státní podporou
  • Aktuálně běžící projekty

Chytré vyhledávání

  • Takto najdu konkrétní +slovo
  • Takto z výsledků -slovo zcela vynechám
  • “Takto můžu najít celou frázi”

Duration of Follow-up and Timing of Discharge from Imaging Follow-up, in Adult Patients with Urolithiasis After Surgical or Medical Intervention: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis from the European Association of Urology Guideline Panel on Urolithiasis

Identifikátory výsledku

  • Kód výsledku v IS VaVaI

    <a href="https://www.isvavai.cz/riv?ss=detail&h=RIV%2F00216208%3A11110%2F23%3A10453837" target="_blank" >RIV/00216208:11110/23:10453837 - isvavai.cz</a>

  • Výsledek na webu

    <a href="https://verso.is.cuni.cz/pub/verso.fpl?fname=obd_publikace_handle&handle=sgwQz3VoVg" target="_blank" >https://verso.is.cuni.cz/pub/verso.fpl?fname=obd_publikace_handle&handle=sgwQz3VoVg</a>

  • DOI - Digital Object Identifier

    <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.euf.2022.06.016" target="_blank" >10.1016/j.euf.2022.06.016</a>

Alternativní jazyky

  • Jazyk výsledku

    angličtina

  • Název v původním jazyce

    Duration of Follow-up and Timing of Discharge from Imaging Follow-up, in Adult Patients with Urolithiasis After Surgical or Medical Intervention: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis from the European Association of Urology Guideline Panel on Urolithiasis

  • Popis výsledku v původním jazyce

    Context: No algorithm exists for structured follow-up of urolithiasis patients. Objective: To provide a discharge time point during follow-up of urolithiasis patients after treatment. Evidence acquisition: We performed a systematic review of PubMed/Medline, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, clinicaltrials.gov, and reference lists according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses statement. Fifty studies were eligible. Evidence synthesis: From a pooled analysis of 5467 stone-free patients, we estimated that for a safety margin of 80% for remaining stone free, patients should be followed up using imaging, for at least 2 yr (radiopaque stones) or 3 yr (radiolucent stones) before being discharged. Patients should be discharged after 5 yr of no recurrence with a safety margin of 90%. Regarding residual disease, patients with fragments &lt;=4 mm could be offered surveillance up to 4 yr since intervention rates range between 17% and 29%, disease progression between 9% and 34%, and spontaneous passage between 21% and 34% at 49 mo. Patients with larger residual fragments should be offered further definitive intervention since intervention rates are high (24-100%). Insufficient data exist for high-risk patients, but the current literature dictates that patients who are adherent to targeted medical treatment seem to experience less stone growth or regrowth of residual fragments, and may be discharged after 36-48 mo of nonprogressive disease on imaging. Conclusions: This systematic review and meta-analysis indicates that stone-free patients with radiopaque or radiolucent stones should be followed up to 2 or 3 yr, respectively. In patients with residual fragments &lt;=4 mm, surveillance or intervention can be advised according to patient preferences and characteristics, while for those with larger residual fragments, reintervention should be scheduled. Patient summary: Here, we review the literature regarding follow-up of urolithiasis patients. Patients who have no stones after treatment should be seen up to 2-3 yr, those with large fragments should be reoperated, and those with small fragments could be offered surveillance with imaging.

  • Název v anglickém jazyce

    Duration of Follow-up and Timing of Discharge from Imaging Follow-up, in Adult Patients with Urolithiasis After Surgical or Medical Intervention: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis from the European Association of Urology Guideline Panel on Urolithiasis

  • Popis výsledku anglicky

    Context: No algorithm exists for structured follow-up of urolithiasis patients. Objective: To provide a discharge time point during follow-up of urolithiasis patients after treatment. Evidence acquisition: We performed a systematic review of PubMed/Medline, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, clinicaltrials.gov, and reference lists according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses statement. Fifty studies were eligible. Evidence synthesis: From a pooled analysis of 5467 stone-free patients, we estimated that for a safety margin of 80% for remaining stone free, patients should be followed up using imaging, for at least 2 yr (radiopaque stones) or 3 yr (radiolucent stones) before being discharged. Patients should be discharged after 5 yr of no recurrence with a safety margin of 90%. Regarding residual disease, patients with fragments &lt;=4 mm could be offered surveillance up to 4 yr since intervention rates range between 17% and 29%, disease progression between 9% and 34%, and spontaneous passage between 21% and 34% at 49 mo. Patients with larger residual fragments should be offered further definitive intervention since intervention rates are high (24-100%). Insufficient data exist for high-risk patients, but the current literature dictates that patients who are adherent to targeted medical treatment seem to experience less stone growth or regrowth of residual fragments, and may be discharged after 36-48 mo of nonprogressive disease on imaging. Conclusions: This systematic review and meta-analysis indicates that stone-free patients with radiopaque or radiolucent stones should be followed up to 2 or 3 yr, respectively. In patients with residual fragments &lt;=4 mm, surveillance or intervention can be advised according to patient preferences and characteristics, while for those with larger residual fragments, reintervention should be scheduled. Patient summary: Here, we review the literature regarding follow-up of urolithiasis patients. Patients who have no stones after treatment should be seen up to 2-3 yr, those with large fragments should be reoperated, and those with small fragments could be offered surveillance with imaging.

Klasifikace

  • Druh

    J<sub>imp</sub> - Článek v periodiku v databázi Web of Science

  • CEP obor

  • OECD FORD obor

    30217 - Urology and nephrology

Návaznosti výsledku

  • Projekt

  • Návaznosti

    V - Vyzkumna aktivita podporovana z jinych verejnych zdroju

Ostatní

  • Rok uplatnění

    2023

  • Kód důvěrnosti údajů

    S - Úplné a pravdivé údaje o projektu nepodléhají ochraně podle zvláštních právních předpisů

Údaje specifické pro druh výsledku

  • Název periodika

    European Urology Focus

  • ISSN

    2405-4569

  • e-ISSN

    2405-4569

  • Svazek periodika

    9

  • Číslo periodika v rámci svazku

    1

  • Stát vydavatele periodika

    NL - Nizozemsko

  • Počet stran výsledku

    11

  • Strana od-do

    188-198

  • Kód UT WoS článku

    000992304600001

  • EID výsledku v databázi Scopus

    2-s2.0-85134822679