Objective: In spite of readily available evidence-based guidelines on urolithiasis treatment, practical applications of treatments vary from country to country, or even within countries. The choice of treatment depends not only on the evidence, but often on general non-medical decision factors such as infrastructure, expertise, trends, patient demands, industry drive and reimbursement levels. In turn, many of these factors are interdependent and a result of the individual National Health System. Method: In an attempt to get a crude picture of trends and practices in stone treatment across Europe, a group of well-renowned international experts in the field were asked to reply to a set of standard questions relating to stone treatments, health systems and adherence to guidelines (level of evidence D = expert opinion). Results: The above-mentioned interdependencies showed a varying picture in different countries. Overall, there is a trend away from lithotripsy and toward ureterorenoscopy. However, the choice of treatment is largely dependent on the affordability of infrastructure. Urologists may make choices based on the national reimbursement system, too. Conclusion: Without claiming to represent a scientifically sound study, this survey represents an interesting insight into a representative cross-section of European urological current practices and trends in urolithiasis treatment.

Keywords:
Urolithiasis, Treatment, Health system, Europe, Trend
1.
Monga M, Beeman WW: Advanced intrarenal ureteroscopic procedures. Urol Clin North Am 2004;31:129-135.
2.
Payer L: Medicine and Culture: Notions of Health and Sickness in Britain, the U.S., France and West Germany. London, Victor Gollancz, 1989, p 204.
3.
Kauer PC, Laguna MP, Alivizatos G, et al: Present practice and treatment strategies in endourological stone management: results of a survey of the European Society of Uro-Technology (ESUT). Eur Urol 2005;48:182-188.
4.
Sheehan KB: E-mail survey response rates: a review. J Comput Mediat Commun 2001;6.
5.
GKV-Spitzenverband, Kennzahlen der Gesetzlichen Krankenversicherung, June 2015. https://www.gkv-spitzenverband.de/media/grafiken/gkv_kennzahlen/kennzahlen_gkv_2015_q1/GKV_Kennzahlen_Booklet_Q1-2015_300dpi_2015-06-29.pdf (accessed July 21, 2015).
6.
Calculation based on average private bill in relation to the procedure. Accounting files of Urologische Klinik München Planegg (L Durner personal communication).
7.
Pearle MS, Calhoun EA, Curhan GC; Urologic Diseases of America Project: Urologic diseases in America project: urolithiasis. J Urol 2005;173:848-857.
8.
Ather MH, Paryani J, Memon A, Sulaiman MN: A 10-year experience of managing ureteric calculi: changing trends towards endourological intervention - is there a role for open surgery? BJU Int 2001;88:173-177.
9.
Bach C, Buchholz N: Shock wave lithotripsy for renal and ureteric stones. Eur Urol Suppl 2011;10:423-432.
10.
Gosden T, Forland F, Kristiansen IS, 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.
11.
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;3:245-258.
12.
Recursos y Actividades del Sistema Nacional de Salud: Ministerio de Sanidad y Consumo Catálogo Nacional de Hospitales 2008; actualizado a 31 de diciembre de 2007.
13.
Castoro C, Bertinato L, Baccaglini U, et al: Day surgery: making it happen. Policy Brief, World Health Organization 2007, on behalf of the European Observatory on Health Systems and Policies, 2007.
14.
Koo V, Young M, Thompson T, Duggan B: Cost-effectiveness and efficiency of shockwave lithotripsy vs flexible ureteroscopic holmium:yttrium-aluminium-garnet laser lithotripsy in the treatment of lower pole renal calculi. BJU Int 2011;108:1913-1916.
15.
Koo V, Beattie I, Young M: Improved cost-effectiveness and efficiency with a slower shockwave delivery rate. BJU Int 2010;105:692-696.
16.
Siciliani L, Hurst J: Explaining waiting-time variations for elective surgery across OECD countries. OECD Economic Studies No 38, 2004/1.
17.
Maan Z, Patel D, Moraitis K, et al: Comparison of stent-related symptoms between conventional Double-J stents and a new-generation thermoexpandable segmental metallic stent: a validated-questionnaire-based study. J Endourol 2010;24:589-593.
18.
Ramirez de Arellano AB: Patients without borders: the emergence of medical tourism. Int J Health Serv 2007;37:193-198.
19.
Dickens NJ, Buchholz NP, Masood J: The impact of a virtual nurse led X-ray review clinic in improving utilization of shockwave lithotripsy treatment slots. http://f1000research.com/posters/1612 (accessed July 21, 2015).
20.
Mojon-Azzi SM, Mojon DS: Waiting times for cataract surgery in ten European countries: an analysis using data from the SHARE survey. Br J Ophthalmol 2007;91:282-286.
21.
Buchholz N, El Howairis M, Bach C, Moraitis K, Masood J: From stone cutting to Hi-technology methods: the changing face of stone surgery. Arab J Urol 2011;9:25-27.
22.
de la Rosette JJ, Gravas S, Muschter R, Rassweiler J, Joyce A; European Society of Uro-Technology: Present practice and development of minimally invasive techniques, imaging and training in European urology: results of a survey of the European Society of Uro-Technology (ESUT). Eur Urol 2003;44:346-351.
23.
Papatsoris AG, Kachrilas S, El Howairis M, Masood J, Buchholz N: Novel technologies in flexible ureterorenoscopy. Arab J Urol 2011;9:41-46.
24.
Grimshaw JM, Russell IT: Effect of clinical guidelines on medical practice: a systematic review of rigorous evaluations. Lancet 1993;342:1317-1322.
25.
Türk C, Knoll T, Petrik A, Sarica K, Straub M, Seitz C: EAU Guidelines on Urolithiasis (update March 2011).
26.
Wang S, Zhang Y, Mao Z, He X, Zhang Q, Zhang D: A meta-analysis of coffee intake and risk of urolithiasis. Urol Int 2014;93:220-228.
27.
Wang X, Xu X, Wu J, Zhu Y, Lin Y, Zheng X, Xie L: Systematic review and meta-analysis of the effect of alcohol intake on the risk of urolithiasis including dose-response relationship. Urol Int 2015;94:194-204.
28.
Halm EA, Lee C, Chassin MR: Is volume related to outcome in health care? A systematic review and methodologic critique of the literature. Ann Intern Med 2002;137:511-520.
© 2015 S. Karger AG, Basel
2015
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.