The examination of the quality of life changes of patients with urolithiasis regarding different methods of treatment

Branka Gvozdić; Dragica Milenković Petronić; Nebojša Ladjević; Aleksandar Vuksanović; Otaš Durutović

doi:10.2298/VSP180309060G

Branka Gvozdić Clinical Centre of Serba, Centre of Anaesthesia and Resuscitation, Belgrade, Serbia
Dragica Milenković Petronić Clinical Centre of Serba, Centre of Anaesthesia and Resuscitation, Belgrade, Serbia
Nebojša Ladjević Clinical Centre of Serba, Centre of Anaesthesia and Resuscitation, Belgrade, Serbia
Aleksandar Vuksanović University of Belgrade, Faculty of Medicine, Belgrade, Serbia
Otaš Durutović Clinical Centre of Serba, Centre of Anaesthesia and Resuscitation, Belgrade, Serbia

DOI: https://doi.org/10.2298/VSP180309060G

Keywords: urolithiasis, lithotripsy, quality of life, surveys and questionnaires, methods, treatment outcome

Abstract

Background/Aim. Urolithiasis is one of the most common urological illnesses with a continual rise in incidence and prevalence in the population. Its pathogenesis is multi-factorial; hence, its consequences are serious problems that can significantly impact the quality of life of patients. In the last years, operational modes of urolithiasis treatment had undergone evolution changes towards minimally invasive treatment techniques aimed at improving its efficacy and patients' life quality. The aim of the study was to examine and evaluate the quality of life of the patients with urolithiasis depending on the applied treatment method. Methods. This research was designed as a panel study – a combination of a cross-sectional and cohort study. The sample included patients with urolithiasis treated with extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL) or ureteroscopic lithotripsy (Lithoclast). The research was carried during one year period and 100 respondents met the inclusion criteria. They were divided into two equal groups considering the applied method of the stone disintegration: the Lithoclast group (URSL) and the ESWL group. The instrument used for measuring the quality of life was Short Form (SF) 36 questionnaire. It was administrated to the patients immediately before the operation and one month after the operation. Results. The statistical analysis of the scores obtained preoperationally on the SF 36 questionnaire revealed the decrease in the quality of life of patients with urolithiasis in almost all dimensions of life. The statistically relevant difference in preoperative SF scores between the two groups of patients was not established except in the domain of the role of physical health and the domain of mental health. In the domain of the role of physical health, the Lithoclast group had a statistically significant higher score than the ESWL group, but in the domain of mental health, the ESWL group had a statistically significant higher score than the Lithoclast group. The postoperative statistical analysis of SF questionnaire and the examination of the impact of the treatment mode on the quality of life showed that the use of the Lithoclast method resulted in the much higher, statistically significant score at SF36 questionnaires regarding several life dimensions than the ESWL method. The application of the ESWL method even resulted in the decrease in the postoperational score for some life dimensions. Conclusion. The assessment of the quality of life is an adequate tool for the evaluation of treatment modes in the clinical practice. By using the SF 36 questionnaire in this study, we established that the ureteroscopic lithotripsy (the Lithoclast method) is a method that postoperatively results in much higher and statistically significant improvement of the quality of life of patients with urolithiasis in several health domains than the ESWL method.

References

Lotan Y, Cadeddu J, Roerhborn C, Pak C, Pearle M. Cost-effectiveness of medical management strategies for nephro-lithiasis. J Urol 2004; 172(6 Pt 1): 2275–81.

Portis AJ, Sundaram CP. Diagnosis and initial management of kidney stones. Am Fam Physician 2001; 63(7): 1329–38.

Vijaya T, Satish Kumar M, Ramarao NV, Naredra Babu A, Ra-marao N. Urolithiasis and its causes-short review. J Phyto-pharmacol 2013; 2(3): 1–6.

Manzoor S, Hashmi AH, Sohail MA, Mahar F, Bhatti S, Khuhro AQ. Extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL) vs. urete-rorenoscopic (URS) manipulation in proximal ureteric stone. J Coll Physicians Surg Pak 2013; 23(10): 726–30.

Penniston KL, Sninsky BC, Nakada SY. Preliminary evidence of decreased disease-specific health-related quality of life in asymptomatic stone patients. J Endourol 2016; 30 Suppl 1: S42–5.

Angulo JC, Bernardo N, Zampolli H, Rivero MA, Dávila H, Gutiérrez J. Trends in the management of urolithiasis in Latin America, Spain and Portugal: results of a survey in the Con-federación Americana de Urología (CAU). Actas Urol Esp 2018; 42(1): 33–41.

Penniston KL, Nakada SY. Development of an instrument to assess the health related quality of life of kidney stone for-mers. J Urol 2013; 189(3): 921–30.

Joković S, Pavlović J, Hadživuković N, Đević R, Vilotić S. Methods of testing and indicators of quality of life. Biomedicinska istraživanja 2017; 8(1): 90–4. (Bosnian)

World Health Organization. Division of Mental Health WHOQOL-BREF: introduction, administration, scoring and generic version of the assessment. India, New Delhi: World Health Organization, Regional Office for South-East Asia; 1996.

The World Health Organization Quality of Life Assessment (WHOQOL): development and general psychometric proper-ties. Soc Sci Med 1998; 46(12): 1569–85.

Paterson C. Quality of life measures. Br J Gen Pract 2010; 60(570): 53.

Lyon: ProQuolid patient-Reported Outcome and Quality of Life Instruments Database SF-36 Health Serbian Version. Available from: http://www.proqolid.org, Inc;c2001-14 [up-dated 2014 October 26; cited 2014 November 1].

Peterson MG, Allegrante JP, Cornell CN, MacKenzie CR, Robbins L, Horton R, et al. Measuring recovery after a hip fracture us-ing the SF-36 and Cummings scales. Osteoporos Int 2002; 13(4): 296–302.

Konstantinović L, Devecerski G, Petronić I, Jović S, Cutović M, Ciro-vić D. Quality of life in patients with subacute low back pain treated with physiotherapy rehabilitation. Med Pregl 2006; 59 Suppl 1: 35–9. (Serbian)

Türk C, Petřík A, Sarica K, Seitz C, Skolarikos A, Straub M, et al. EAU Guidelines on Diagnosis and Conservative Manage-ment of Urolithiasis. Eur Urol 2016; 69(3): 468–74.

Bryant M, Angell J, Tu H, Goodman M, Pattaras J, Ogan K. Health related quality of life for stone formers. J Urol 2012; 188(2): 436–40.

Petrović L, Mitić I, Bozić D, Vodopivec S, Durdević-Mirković T. Quality of life in patients with chronic renal failure. Med Pregl 2006; 59(9–10): 411–4. (Serbian)

Donnally CJ 3rd, Gupta A, Bensalah K, Tuncel A, Raman J, Pearle MS, et al. Longitudinal evaluation of the SF-36 quality of life questionnaire in patients with kidney stones. Urol Res 2011; 39(2): 141–6.

New F, Somani BK. A Complete World Literature Review of Quality of Life (QOL) in Patients with Kidney Stone Disease (KSD). Curr Urol Rep 2016; 17(12): 88.

Vukojevic Z, Pekmezovic T, Nikolic A, Peric S, Basta I, Marjanovic I, et al. Correlation of clinical and neurophysiological findings with health-related quality of life in patients with diabetic polyneuropathy. Vojnosanit Pregl 2014; 71(9): 833–8.

Raja A, Hekmati Z, Joshi HB. How Do Urinary Calculi Influ-ence Health-Related Quality of Life and Patient Treatment Preference: A Systematic Review. J Endourol 2016; 30(7): 727–43.

Patel N, Brown RD, Sarkissian C, De S, Monga M. Quality of life and urolithiasis: the patient - reported outcomes meas-urement information system (PROMIS). Int Braz J Urol 2017; 43(5): 880–6.

Penniston KL, Nakada SY. Health related quality of life differs between male and female stone formers. J Urol 2007; 178(6): 2435–40; discussion 2440.

Ellison JS, Williams M, Keeley FX Jr. Patient-Reported Out-comes in Nephrolithiasis: Can We Do Better? J Endourol 2018; 32(1): 10–20.

Penniston KL, Nakada SY. Treatment expectations and health-related quality of life in stone formers. Curr Opin Urol 2016; 26(1): 50–5.

Ozgor F, Sahan M, Yanaral F, Savun M, Sarilar O. Flexible ureterorenoscopy is associated with less stone recurrence rates over Shockwave lithotripsy in the management of 10-20 mil-limeter lower pole renal stone: medium follow-up results. Int Braz J Urol 2018; 44(2): 314–22.