Introduction: Urologists have to master a variety of techniques to be able to offer the most appropriate surgical stone treatment for each individual patient. Therefore, we performed a survey among board-certified Swiss urologists to assess the availability of the different surgical methods, the current practices of surgical treatment of urolithiasis and the adherence to evidence-based guideline recommendations in Switzerland. Methods: A 14-question survey assessed the working environment, equipment, perioperative settings and decision trees for specific stone scenarios. Data was analyzed using descriptive statistics and chi-square tests to determine differences between frequencies of answers. Results: Hundred and five members of Swiss Urology (38%) completed the survey. All treatment modalities are available for the majority of respondents. Ureterorenoscopy was found to have the highest availability (100%) and was the preferred choice in the majority of stone scenarios. A high adherence to the guidelines was found for the treatment of ureteral stones <10 mm (100% proximal and distal), and >10 mm (69% proximal, 94% distal). All respondents answered in accordance with the guidelines regarding the treatment of middle and upper pole stones <10 mm, 10–20 mm and lower pole stones 10–20 mm. Guideline adherence was 99% for lower pole stones <10 mm, 78% for lower pole stones >20 mm, and 63% for middle/upper pole stones >20 mm. Conclusion: This survey provides a detailed insight into current stone treatment practices in Switzerland. The full spectrum of urinary stone treatment options is available for the majority of Swiss urologists. The choice of treatment shows a high accordance with evidence-based guidelines and a preference for retrograde endoscopic surgery in the majority of stone scenarios.

Keywords:
Urinary stone, Treatment, Swiss urology, Shock-wave lithotripsy, Retrograde intrarenal surgery, Percutaneous nephrolithotomy
1.
Rassweiler J, Rassweiler MC, Kenngott H, Frede T, Michel MS, Alken P, et al. The past, present and future of minimally invasive therapy in urology: a review and speculative outlook.
Minim Invasive Ther Allied Technol
. 2013 Aug;22(4):200–9.
2.
Geraghty RM, Jones P, Somani BK. Worldwide Trends of Urinary Stone Disease Treatment Over the Last Two Decades: A Systematic Review.
J Endourol
. 2017 Jun;31(6):547–56.
3.
Ruhayel Y, Tepeler A, Dabestani S, MacLennan S, Petřík A, Sarica K, et al. Tract Sizes in Miniaturized Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy: A Systematic Review from the European Association of Urology Urolithiasis Guidelines Panel.
Eur Urol
. 2017 Aug;72(2):220–35.
4.
Wright A, Rukin N, Smith D, De la Rosette J, Somani BK. ‘Mini, ultra, micro’ - nomenclature and cost of these new minimally invasive percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL) techniques.
Ther Adv Urol
. 2016 Apr;8(2):142–6.
5.
Humphreys MR. The emerging role of robotics and laparoscopy in stone disease.
Urol Clin North Am
. 2013 Feb;40(1):115–28.
6.
Zumstein V, Betschart P, Abt D, Schmid HP, Panje CM, Putora PM. Surgical management of urolithiasis - a systematic analysis of available guidelines.
BMC Urol
. 2018 Apr;18(1):25.
7.
European Association of Urology. Non-Oncology Guidelines. Urolithiasis. Available from: http://uroweb.org/guideline/urolithiasis/ (Accessed November 2018).
8.
Swiss Urology - schweizerische Gesellschaft für Urologie. Available from: https://swissurology.ch/swiss-urology/ (Accessed November 2018).
9.
Lingeman JE, McAteer JA, Gnessin E, Evan AP. Shock wave lithotripsy: advances in technology and technique.
Nat Rev Urol
. 2009 Dec;6(12):660–70.
10.
Elmansy HE, Lingeman JE. Recent advances in lithotripsy technology and treatment strategies: A systematic review update.
Int J Surg
. 2016 Dec;36(Pt D):676–80.
11.
Schnabel MJ, Brummeisl W, Burger M, Rassweiler JJ, Knoll T, Neisius A, et al. [Shock wave lithotripsy in Germany: results of a nationwide survey].
Urologe A
. 2015 Sep;54(9):1277–82.
12.
Lantz AG, McKay J, Ordon M, Pace KT, Monga M, Honey RJ. Shockwave Lithotripsy Practice Pattern Variations Among and Between American and Canadian Urologists: In Support of Guidelines.
J Endourol
. 2016 Aug;30(8):918–22.
13.
Knoll T. Super-, perfect-, ultra-, micro-, mini-, …: does anybody benefit from miniaturized percutaneous nephrolithotomy?
World J Urol
. 2018 Feb;36(2):319–20.
14.
Yuan D, Liu Y, Rao H, Cheng T, Sun Z, Wang Y, et al. Supine Versus Prone Position in Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy for Kidney Calculi: A Meta-Analysis.
J Endourol
. 2016 Jul;30(7):754–63.
15.
Intuitive Surgical, Inc.Sunnyvale, CA. United States. Available from: https://www.slideshare.net/limitless0o/intuitive-surgical-investor-presentation-q315 (Accessed November 2018).
16.
Ulvik O, Ulvik NM. Diversity in urologists’ personal preferences in the ureteroscopic management of ureteral calculi in Norway.
Scand J Urol
. 2013 Apr;47(2):126–30.
17.
Bandi G, Best SL, Nakada SY. Current practice patterns in the management of upper urinary tract calculi in the north central United States.
J Endourol
. 2008 Apr;22(4):631–6.
18.
Roberts G, Opondo D, Nott L, Razvi H, de la Rosette J, Beiko D. Do urologists follow the golden rule? A global urolithiasis management study by the Clinical Research Office of the Endourological Society.
Can Urol Assoc J
. 2016 Jan-Feb;10(1-2):50–4.
19.
American Urological Association. Surgical Managmenet of Stone: AUA/Endourology Society Guideline: Available from: https://www.auanet.org/guidelines/stone-disease-surgical-(2016) (Accessed November 2018).
20.
Alenezi H, Denstedt JD. Flexible ureteroscopy: technological advancements, current indications and outcomes in the treatment of urolithiasis.
Asian J Urol
. 2015 Jul;2(3):133–41.
21.
Dauw CA, Simeon L, Alruwaily AF, Sanguedolce F, Hollingsworth JM, Roberts WW, et al. Contemporary Practice Patterns of Flexible Ureteroscopy for Treating Renal Stones: Results of a Worldwide Survey.
J Endourol
. 2015 Nov;29(11):1221–30.
22.
Zanetti SP, Boeri L, Catellani M, Gallioli A, Trinchieri A, Sarica K, et al. Retrograde intrarenal surgery (RIRS), regular and small sized percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL) in daily practice: European Association of Urology Section of Urolithiasis (EULIS) Survey.
Arch Ital Urol Androl
. 2016 Oct;88(3):212–6.
23.
Ates F, Zor M, Yılmaz O, Tuncer M, Ozturk M, Gurbuz C, et al. Management behaviors of the urology practitioners to the small lower calyceal stones: the results of a web-based survey.
Urolithiasis
. 2016 Jun;44(3):277–81.
24.
Kronenberg P, Somani B. Advances in Lasers for the Treatment of Stones-a Systematic Review.
Curr Urol Rep
. 2018 May;19(6):45.
25.
Gosden T, Forland F, Kristiansen IS, Sutton M, Leese B, Giuffrida A, et al. Capitation, salary, fee-for-service and mixed systems of payment: effects on the behaviour of primary care physicians.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev
. 2000;(3):CD002215.
26.
Shimmura K. Effects of different remuneration methods on general medical practice: a comparison of capitation and fee-for-service payment.
Int J Health Plann Manage
. 1988 Oct-Dec;3(4):245–58.
© 2019 S. Karger AG, Basel
2019
Copyright / Drug Dosage / Disclaimer
Copyright: All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be translated into other languages, reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, microcopying, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher.
Drug Dosage: The authors and the publisher have exerted every effort to ensure that drug selection and dosage set forth in this text are in accord with current recommendations and practice at the time of publication. However, in view of ongoing research, changes in government regulations, and the constant flow of information relating to drug therapy and drug reactions, the reader is urged to check the package insert for each drug for any changes in indications and dosage and for added warnings and precautions. This is particularly important when the recommended agent is a new and/or infrequently employed drug.
Disclaimer: The statements, opinions and data contained in this publication are solely those of the individual authors and contributors and not of the publishers and the editor(s). The appearance of advertisements or/and product references in the publication is not a warranty, endorsement, or approval of the products or services advertised or of their effectiveness, quality or safety. The publisher and the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to persons or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content or advertisements.
You do not currently have access to this content.