Retrospective Analysis of Ureteroscopy Outcomes

All adults who underwent ureteroscopy (URS) procedure for stone disease over a 52-month period between March 2012 and July 2016 were included in this study. Our audit was registered with our hospital ‘Clinical Effectiveness (CE) and Audit office’ with patient consent for participation taken prior to the procedure. Outcomes were collated prospectively for consecutive adults (>18 years of age) who underwent URS for stone disease, performed or supervised by a single surgeon (BS) at our institution and recorded in our prospective database which was then analysed retrospectively by a third party (AG, RO) not involved in the original procedure. Data were collected for patient demographics, stone parameters, pre-operative assessment, operative details, length of stay (LoS), stone-free rate (SFR) and complication rates associated with the procedure. LoS was defined as the time from completion of URS to discharge of patients with day case defined as those patients discharged on the same day as having undergone the procedure. Data were recorded on excel spread sheet and analysed using SPSS version 22.

Free full text: Click here

Ghosh A., Oliver R., Way C., White L, & Somani B.K. (2017). Results of day-case ureterorenoscopy (DC-URS) for stone disease: prospective outcomes over 4.5 years. World Journal of Urology, 35(11), 1757-1764.

Publication 2017

SPSS version 22

Adults Patients Stone Surgeon Ureteroscopy

Corresponding Organization :

Other organizations : University Hospital Southampton NHS Foundation Trust

Top 5 similar protocols

Protocol cited in 4 other protocols

Variable analysis

independent variables

None explicitly mentioned

dependent variables

Length of stay (LoS)
Stone-free rate (SFR)
Complication rates associated with the procedure

control variables

Patients underwent ureteroscopy (URS) procedure for stone disease
Procedures were performed or supervised by a single surgeon (BS)
Patients' data was recorded in a prospective database and analyzed retrospectively by a third party (AG, RO)

controls

Positive control: None mentioned
Negative control: None mentioned

Annotations

Based on most similar protocols

Etiam vel ipsum. Morbi facilisis vestibulum nisl. Praesent cursus laoreet felis. Integer adipiscing pretium orci. Nulla facilisi. Quisque posuere bibendum purus. Nulla quam mauris, cursus eget, convallis ac, molestie non, enim. Aliquam congue. Quisque sagittis nonummy sapien. Proin molestie sem vitae urna. Maecenas lorem.

As authors may omit details in methods from publication, our AI will look for missing critical information across the 5 most similar protocols.

About PubCompare

Our mission is to provide scientists with the largest repository of trustworthy protocols and intelligent analytical tools, thereby offering them extensive information to design robust protocols aimed at minimizing the risk of failures.

We believe that the most crucial aspect is to grant scientists access to a wide range of reliable sources and new useful tools that surpass human capabilities.

However, we trust in allowing scientists to determine how to construct their own protocols based on this information, as they are the experts in their field.

Ready to get started?

Revolutionizing how scientists
search and build protocols!