Endourologists vs Urologists: The Impact of Surgical Experience and Annual Case Volume on Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy Outcomes

  • Yusuf Sahin University of Health Sciences, Bagcilar Training and Research Hospital, Department of Urology, Istanbul, Turkey
  • Sergen Sahin University of Health Sciences, Bagcilar Training and Research Hospital, Department of Urology, Istanbul, Turkey https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2951-5991
  • Mehmet Yilmaz University of Health Sciences, Bagcilar Training and Research Hospital, Department of Urology, Istanbul, Turkey https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5780-534X
  • Ahmet Yaser Muslumanoglu University of Health Sciences, Bagcilar Training and Research Hospital, Department of Urology, Istanbul, Turkey https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8691-0886
DOI: https://doi.org/10.5937/scriptamed54-45575
Keywords: Percutaneous nephrolithotomy, Stone-free status, Annual case volume, Surgeon experience

Abstract


Background/Aim: Surgeon experience, which is an important factor in reducing surgical complications, has been underestimated when analysing percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PNL) outcomes. Aim of this study was to investigate the impact of annual case volume (ACV) of endourologists and urologists on PNL outcomes including stone-free status (SFS) and complications.

Methods: A total of 530 patients who underwent PNL in the Clinic between January 2018 and January 2023 were retrospectively analysed. The patients were divided into two groups: those operated by endourologists (Group 1, n = 324) and by urologists (Group 2, n = 206). The two groups were statistically compared in terms of postoperative SFS and complications.

Results: There were two endourologists in Group 1 and four urologists in Group 2. The mean ACV was 73.56 ± 7.43 in Group 1 and 23.81 ± 9.09 in Group 2, indicating a statistically significantly higher rate in Group 1 (p < 0.001). There was no statistically significant difference in the postoperative SFS rates between the groups (p = 0.064). In the perioperative period, the mean estimated blood loss and nephrostomy dwell time were significantly lower in Group 1 than Group 2 (p = 0.013 and p = 0.008, respectively). In the logistic regression analysis, a cut-off value of > 24 for ACV and CROES scores were the significant predictors of SFS (p = 0.004 and p < 0.001, respectively). The complication rate was significantly lower among surgeons with an ACV of > 24 (p < 0.001).

Conclusion: Results from this study showed that an ACV of > 24 increases SFS rate by 2.13 with lower complication rates in patients undergoing PNL. Further multi-centre, large-scale studies are required to investigate the effect of surgical experience and ACV on postoperative outcomes and to predict PNL outcomes with high accuracy.

References

1.      Castellani D, Corrales M, Lim EJ, Cracco C, Scoffone CM, Teoh JY, et al. The impact of lasers in percutaneous nephrolithotomy outcomes: results from a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized comparative trials. J Endourol 2022 Feb;36(2):151-7.

2.      Xu Y, Huang X. Effect of body mass index on outcomes of percutaneous nephrolithotomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Front Surg 2022 Jun 14;9:922451. doi: 10.3389/fsurg.2022.922451.

3.      Karsiyakali N, Yucetas U, Karatas A, Karabay E, Okucu E, Erkan E. Renal pelvis urine Gram stain as a traditional, but new marker in predicting postoperative fever and stone culture positivity in percutaneous nephrolithotomy: an observational, prospective, non-randomized cohort study. World J Urol 2021 Jun;39(6):2135-46.

4.      Thomas K, Smith NC, Hegarty N, Glass JM. The Guy's stone score--grading the complexity of percutaneous nephrolithotomy procedures. Urology 2011 Aug;78(2):277-81.

5.      Okhunov Z, Friedlander JI, George AK, Duty BD, Moreira DM, Srinivasan AK, et al. S.T.O.N.E. nephrolithometry: novel surgical classification system for kidney calculi. Urology 2013 Jun;81(6):1154-9.

6.      Smith A, Averch TD, Shahrour K, Opondo D, Daels FP, Labate G, et al; CROES PCNL Study Group. A nephrolithometric nomogram to predict treatment success of percutaneous nephrolithotomy. J Urol 2013 Jul;190(1):149-56.

7.      Wu WJ, Okeke Z. Current clinical scoring systems of percutaneous nephrolithotomy outcomes. Nat Rev Urol 2017 Aug;14(8):459-69.

8.      Jiang K, Sun F, Zhu J, Luo G, Zhang P, Ban Y, et al. Evaluation of three stone-scoring systems for predicting SFR and complications after percutaneous nephrolithotomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis. BMC Urol 2019 Jul 1;19(1):57. doi: 10.1186/s12894-019-0488-y.

9.      Bibi M, Sellami A, Chaker K, Ouanes Y, Kheiredine MD, Ben Chehida MA, et al. [Do the nephrolithometry scoring systems predict the success of percutaneous nephrolithotomy. Comparison of 4 scores: The Guy's stone score, STONE Score, CROES nomogram and S-ReSC score]. Prog Urol 2019 Jul-Aug;29(8-9):432-9. French.

10.   Aldaqadossi HA, Khairy Salem H, Kotb Y, Hussein HA, Shaker H, Dikaios N. Prediction of pediatric percutaneous nephrolithotomy outcomes using Contemporary Scoring Systems. J Urol 2017 Nov;198(5):1146-52.

11.   Yarimoglu S, Bozkurt IH, Aydogdu O, Yonguc T, Sefik E, Topcu YK, et al. External validation and comparison of the scoring systems (S.T.O.N.E, GUY, CROES, S-ReSC) for predicting percutaneous nephrolithotomy outcomes for staghorn stones: A single center experience with 160 cases. Kaohsiung J Med Sci 2017 Oct;33(10):516-22.

12.   Kocaaslan R, Tepeler A, Buldu I, Tosun M, Utangac MM, Karakan T, et al. Do the urolithiasis scoring systems predict the success of percutaneous nephrolithotomy in cases with anatomical abnormalities? Urolithiasis 2017 Jun;45(3):305-10.

13.   Opondo D, Tefekli A, Esen T, Labate G, Sangam K, De Lisa A, et al; CROES PCNL study group. Impact of case volumes on the outcomes of percutaneous nephrolithotomy. Eur Urol 2012 Dec;62(6):1181-7.

14.   Huang WY, Wu SC, Chen YF, Lan CF, Hsieh JT, Huang KH. Surgeon volume for percutaneous nephrolithotomy is associated with medical costs and length of hospital stay: a nationwide population-based study in Taiwan. J Endourol 2014 Aug;28(8):915-21.

15.   Sabler IM, Katafigiotis I, Gofrit ON, Duvdevani M. Present indications and techniques of percutaneous nephrolithotomy: What the future holds? Asian J Urol 2018 Oct;5(4):287-94.

16.   Maruthappu M, Gilbert BJ, El-Harasis MA, Nagendran M, McCulloch P, Duclos A, et al. The influence of volume and experience on individual surgical performance: a systematic review. Ann Surg 2015 Apr;261(4):642-7.

17.   Kadlec AO, Ellimoottil C, Guo R, Trinh QD, Sun M, Turk TM. Contemporary volume-outcome relationships for percutaneous nephrolithotomy: results from the Nationwide Inpatient Sample. J Endourol 2013;27(9):1107-13.

18.   de la Rosette JJ, Laguna MP, Rassweiler JJ, Conort P. Training in percutaneous nephrolithotomy—a critical review. Eur Urol 2008;54:994–1001.

Published
2023/09/20
Issue
Vol. 54 No. 3 (2023): Q3/September 2023
Section
Original article
Authors who publish with this journal agree to the following terms:

  1. Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgement of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.

  2. Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgement of its initial publication in this journal.

  3. Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work (See The Effect of Open Access).