Endoscopy vs. extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy in the treatment of distal ureteral stones: ten years' experience.

BACKGROUND: The lower third is the location of the great majority of ureteral stones. Treatment of these stones remains controversial: in situ extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy (SWL) vs. ureteroscopy (URS). METHODS: During the last decade, 633 distal ureteral calculi were treated at our institution using in situ SWL (Siemens Lithostar electromagnetic lithotripter) in 395 patients and URS (with 11.5F instrument and ultrasonic lithotripsy) in 228 patients. The patients' age and stone size were similar in the two groups. All SWL therapies were performed on an outpatient basis. RESULTS: The overall success rate was 99% for SWL, and the efficiency quotient (EQ) was 92.4%. The treatment was more effective for <10 mm calculi. In the URS group, there was a 92% overall success rate with an EQ at 91.2%. Compared with SWL, URS was more time consuming, at least for the initial cases; often required intravenous sedation; entailed routine placement of a ureteral stent; and more often led to hospitalization. On the other hand, stone clearance was rapid after URS, although most of the SWL patients were stone free at the end of 6 weeks. The cost was similar in the two groups. CONCLUSION: We believe that multiple factors should be considered when deciding the most appropriate approach to distal ureteral calculi. In situ SWL provides optimal first-line treatment for calculi < 10 mm, whereas URS is better reserved for stones >10 mm.     

Extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy compared with ureteroscopy for the removal of small distal ureteral stones

INTRODUCTION: The treatment of small distal ureteral stones smaller or equal to 5 mm in size is still highly controversial. In distal ureteral stones larger than 5 mm in size, ureteroscopy (URS) has been shown in many studies to be superior to shockwave lithotripsy (SWL). The objective was to analyze the stone-free rate after treatment of distal ureteral stones with in situ SWL or URS. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 3,857 SWL treatments were performed at our institution between 1996 and 2001. During this period 45 in situ SWL procedures were performed with the Dornier MFL 5000 lithotripter on distal ureteral stones regardless of the stone size. A total of 262 URS treatments were performed on distal ureteral stones. URS for small (5 mm or less) distal ureteral stones was performed in 110 cases. RESULTS: Distal ureteral stones smaller or equal to 5 mm in size were treated successfully stone free in 78% in one SWL session. Patients required a second SWL in 14% of the cases and 8% of the patients required a third SWL session. URS patients were successfully stone free after the procedure in 97% of the cases. Failed URS that needed an additional URS were performed in 2 and 1% of the patients had one SWL in situ treatment. CONCLUSIONS: URS treatment has shown to be the therapy of choice for distal ureteral stones. It is more effective than SWL treatment in this stone location. In experienced hands URS is a safe though even more invasive procedure than SWL. This can be expected as urologists perform more than 40 URS procedures per year.     

Modern Stone Management in Children

Shock wave lithotripsy (SWL) for the treatment of pediatric stone disease was initiated almost three decades ago, ushering in a new era of noninvasive techniques for stone disintegration in children. Initially, all urinary stones—regardless of their size, site, or composition—were treated by this modality, eliminating the necessity of open surgery. SWL became less painful and more accessible for children when modern modular lithotripters, with smaller foci and better stone-targeting options, were introduced. Stone-free rates (SFRs) vary between 46% and 100%, depending on patient, lithotripter, and stone factors. Short- and long-term complications are rare. Recent refinements in endoscope design and intrarenal and ureteral imaging have added percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL) and ureteroscopy (URS) as alternatives to SWL for stone disintegration in children and infants. The main advantage of these modalities over SWL is their ability to actively remove stone fragments from the urinary system to achieve better SFRs compared with SWL in ureteral and large renal calculi. Current stone management guidelines for children have been established and updated by the European Association of Urology. Hand- and robot-assisted laparoscopic pyelolithtomy have recently been introduced for special cases. We conclude that SWL is an effective and safe treatment modality for small renal stones and for upper ureteral calculi but not for cysteine stones. URS is very efficient for distal ureteral stones and recently has become more popular for renal stones. PCNL is the first-line treatment for large or staghorn calculi.     

ESWL与输尿管镜治疗输尿管下段结石的比较

目的：比较体外冲击波碎石术（ＥＳＷＬ）与输尿管治疗输尿管下段结石的结石排净率和并发症。方法：治疗输尿管下段结石患者３９０例,其中用ＥＳＷＬ治疗２１０例,输尿管镜治疗１８０例。结果：两组患者术后１个月的结石排净率分别为７８．１％和９３．３％（Ｐ〈０．０５）;ＥＳＷＬ组的主要并发症为再次治疗率高（１１．９％）,而输尿管镜组的主要并发症为输尿管穿孔（３．３％）。结论：输尿管镜治疗输尿管下段结石的疗效优于     

Pneumatic lithotripsy versus laser lithotripsy in the endoscopic treatment of ureteral calculi

PURPOSE: To compare the efficacy, safety, and features of pneumatic lithotripsy (PL) with those of laser lithotripsy (LL) and present our clinical experience in the endoscopic management of ureteral calculi. PATIENTS AND METHODS: From August 1994 to February 2000, 285 consecutive patients underwent endoscopic lithotripsy with either the Swiss Lithoclast pneumatic lithotripter (145 patients) or the Ho:YAG laser lithotripter (140 patients) for the treatment of ureteral calculi. RESULTS: In one single session, the overall successful stone fragmentation rate of LL was higher than that of PL (95.7% v 69.7%; P < 0.01). The average time to stone-free status was shorter for LL than for PL (18 days v 31 days; P < 0.01). No major complications were observed in LL, while five ureteral perforations were encountered in PL. CONCLUSIONS: Laser lithotripsy has advantages over PL in high efficiency of stone fragmentation and a low complication rate. Laser lithotripsy is a powerful, effective, and safe treatment modality for ureteral calculi.     

Treatment of urinary calculi with ureteroscopy and Swiss lithoclast pneumatic lithotripter: report of 150 cases

PURPOSE: To present our clinic experience with the Swiss Lithoclast pneumatic lithotripter in the endoscopic management of urinary calculi. PATIENTS AND METHODS: From August 1994 to December 1997, 145 patients with ureteral calculi and 5 patients with urethral calculi were treated with the Swiss Lithoclast. RESULTS: In the ureteral stone group, ureteroscopic addressing of the stones was successful in 133 patients. In 27 patients, the stones were partially fragmented and remained in situ or were pushed back to the calices. They were subsequently treated successfully with SWL. Stones were fragmented in a single session in 101 cases. Complications associated with the procedure included five perforations and four urinary tract infections. All of the five urethral stone patients were treated successfully with pneumatic lithotripsy. The overall successful fragmentation rate thus was 70.7% (106 of 150) and 88.7% (133 of 150) in combination with adjuvant SWL. CONCLUSIONS: We have found Swiss Lithoclast pneumatic lithotripsy to be a safe, effective, and economical treatment method for urinary calculi. If combined with other modalities such as SWL, this treatment will be even more effective.     

三种微创碎石术治疗复杂性输尿管上段结石的临床对比研究

目的:探讨经皮肾镜、经尿道输尿管镜气压弹道碎石术及经尿道输尿管镜钬激光碎石术治疗复杂性输尿管上段结石的临床疗效及安全性。方法:选取150例复杂性输尿管上段结石患者,随机分为A组、B组及C组,每组50例,分别行经皮肾镜、经尿道输尿管镜气压弹道碎石术及经尿道输尿管镜钬激光碎石术。对比3组患者手术时间、术后血红蛋白减少值、住院时间、一次性结石清除率、二次手术率、手术前后患侧肾脏肾小球滤过率水平、术后并发症发生率等。结果:A组手术时间显著短于B、C组(P0.05);B、C组患者术后血红蛋白减少值、住院时间均显著优于A组(P0.05);3组患者一次性结石清除率、二次手术率及术后患侧肾脏肾小球滤过率水平差异无统计学意义(P0.05);C组患者术后并发症发生率显著低于A、B组(P0.05)。结论:相较经皮肾镜、经尿道输尿管镜气压弹道碎石术,经尿道输尿管镜钬激光碎石术治疗复杂性输尿管上段结石可有效减少术中创伤、加快术后康复进程,并有助于降低术后并发症发生风险。     

三种不同术式治疗输尿管结石的Meta分析

目的:对体外冲击波碎石术(ESWL)、输尿管镜碎石术(URS)、经皮肾镜碎石取石术(PCNL)治疗输尿管结石的有效性及安全性进行比较。方法:检索关于输尿管结石治疗的随机对照试验研究文献,数据库包括MEDLINE、EMBASE、Cochrane Library和中国生物医学文摘数据库(CBMDisc)等文摘数据库以及PUBMED、中国期刊全文数据库(CNKI)及维普中文期刊数据库(CQVIP)等全文数据库,按预设的标准筛选纳入研究,对文献质量进行严格评价和资料提取后,采用RevMan5.1软件进行Meta分析。结果:共有15个研究符合纳入标准。Meta分析显示:对于输尿管下段结石,URS组较ESWL组有较高的结石清除率及较低的重复治疗率(P0.01),而在术后并发症及手术时间方面无明显差异(P0.05);对于输尿管上段结石,ESWL组与URS组在结石清除率、术后并发症及重复治疗率方面均无显著差异(P0.05),ESWL组平均治疗时间较URS组短(P0.01);URS组与PCNL组治疗上段结石的对比分析显示PCNL组在结石清除率方面较URS组高(P0.01),两组在术后并发症、平均手术时间及重复治疗方面无明显差异(P0.05)。结论:对于输尿管下段结石的治疗,URS与ESWL相比有结石清除率高及较低的重复治疗率等优点,值得推荐;而对于输尿管上段结石的微创治疗方式的选择则需要进一步分析研究来指导临床实践。     

Shock wave lithotripsy versus ureteroscopy for distal ureteral calculi: a prospective study

We performed a prospective, non-randomised study to determine the appropriate first-line treatment modality for distal ureteral stones. Between 2003 and 2004, a total of 124 patients with distal ureteral calculi were entered into the study (mean age 48 years, 35 women and 99 men). Sixty-two patients were treated with shock wave lithotripsy (SWL) and 62 patients with ureteroscopy (URS). The average stone size was 6.9 mm (3–33 mm) for SWL and 7.2 mm (3–30 mm) for URS. The treatment decision depended on the patients’ preference and clinical parameters (i.e. contraindications for anaesthesia). URS was performed under general anaesthesia, using semirigid 8 Fr instruments. SWL was performed under analgo-sedation using a Modulith SLX. Of patients treated with SWL, 84% had a treatment success within 7 days, 98% after URS. These results show a significant success (P=0.005) in favour of URS. The average in-patient stay after SWL was 3 days and for URS 4 days (not significant). The results show a high efficacy and a low complication rate for both modalities. The attained stone-free rate shows a significant advantage for primary URS.     

输尿管镜气压弹道碎石术与经皮肾穿刺钬激光碎石术治疗输尿管上段结石临床疗效分析

目的探讨输尿管镜气压弹道碎石术与经皮肾穿刺钬激光碎石术两种手术方式治疗输尿管上段结石的临床疗效。方法选取2010年1月~2012年12月我院收治的输尿管上段结石患者126例进行随机分组,输尿管镜气压弹道组64例,经皮肾穿刺钬激光组62例。结果气压弹道组的手术时间为(45.30±3.20)min,明显长于钬激光组(28.61±2.13)min,差异有统计学意义(P0.001);两组患者术后住院时间差异无统计学意义(P0.05)。气压弹道组的术后出血量为(31.53±6.24)ml,明显多于钬激光组(16.16±3.13)ml,差异有统计学意义(P0.001)。术后3d复查结石清除情况,气压弹道组结石清除率70.31%,低于钬激光组85.48%,差异有统计学意义(P0.05);术后1个月复查结石清除情况,气压弹道组结石清除率78.13%,低于钬激光组95.16%,差异有统计学意义(P0.05);术后气压弹道组并发症发生率29.69%,高于钬激光组24.19%,差异无统计学意义(P0.05)。结论超声引导经皮肾穿刺钬激光碎石术治疗输尿管上段结石效果良好,具有手术时间短、结石清除率高、并发症少等优点,值得临床上进一步研究和推广应用。     

Treatment for extended-mid and distal ureteral stones: SWL or ureteroscopy? Results of a multicenter study

PURPOSE: In a randomized study, we analyzed the treatment results of ureterorenoscopy (URS) and shockwave lithotripsy (SWL) for extended-mid and distal ureteral stones. We investigated also, for reasons of cost effectiveness, the factors influencing the outcome, the complications, and the need for auxiliary procedures. PATIENTS AND METHODS: In three regional hospitals, we selected 156 patients with extended-mid and distal ureteral stones. After randomization, 87 were treated with URS, and 69 with SWL. The treatment results were studied in relation to complications, the need for auxiliary procedures and stone factors, urinary tract infection (UTI), dilatation, and kidney function. RESULTS: After retreatment of 45% of the patients, the stone-free rate after 12 weeks in the SWL group was 51%. After a retreatment rate of 9% of the patients in the URS group, the stone-free rate was 91%. Including the number of auxiliary procedures, we calculated the Efficiency Quotient (EQ) as 0.50 for SWL and 0.38 for URS. After correction and redefinition of auxiliary procedures, the EQ was 0.66. The mean treatment time for SWL was 52 minutes and for URS 39 minutes. General anesthesia was more frequently needed in URS patients. Complications occurred more often in the URS group (22 v 3 and 24 v 13, respectively). These were mostly mild, and all could be treated with a double-J stent, antibiotics, or analgetics. A lower stone-free rate was achieved in patients with larger (> or =11 mm) stones (75% v 85% for smaller stones in the URS group and 17% v 73% in the SWL group. In the URS group, the stone-free rate of patients with extended-mid ureteral stones was lower than that of patients with distal ureteral stones. Calculating the costs for URS and SWL appeared impossible because of the differences in available equipment. CONCLUSION: The stone-free rate after URS is much higher than after SWL, and the EQ in our series was strongly dependent on definitions. The decision about how to treat a patient with an extended-mid or distal ureteral stone therefore should not be made primarily on the basis of cost effectiveness but rather on the basis of the availability of proper equipment, the experience of the urologist, and the preference of the patient.     

输尿管导管辅助顺行灌注在输尿管镜上段结石激光碎石中的应用

目的输尿管导管辅助顺行灌注在输尿管镜上段结石激光碎石中的应用。方法选取2016年1月至2017年1月本院泌尿外科行输尿管镜钬激光碎石术(URL)治疗输尿管上段结石的102例患者作为研究对象,根据是否采用输尿管导管辅助顺行灌注将研究对象分为研究组(51例)和对照组(51例),研究组患者在行输尿管镜钬激光碎石术之前将输尿管导管插入结石上方并留置,在采用钬激光碎石时持续注水辅助顺行灌洗,对照组则不采用顺行灌洗,记录两组患者手术一般情况,结石清除率,术后并发症发生率,并对评估结果进行对比分析。结果研究组的住院时间、质量费用与对照组相比差异无统计学意义(P>0.05),但研究组的手术时间显著低于对照组(P<0.05);研究组患者的结石清除率明显高于对照组(94.12%vs.68.63%);研究组患者的术后并发症发生率明显低于对照组(5.88%vs.19.61%)(P<0.05)。结论输尿管导管辅助顺行灌注配合输尿管镜上段结石激光碎石术治疗输尿管上段结石,能够保持手术过程中视野清晰,提高结石清除率,并减少术后并发症发生率,缩短手术时间,具有临床运用和推广意义。     

体外冲击波碎石术与输尿管镜气压弹道碎石术治疗输尿管下段结石的疗效比较

目的　比较体外冲击波碎石术 (ESWL)与输尿管镜气压弹道碎石术 (pneumaticlithotripsy ,PL)治疗输尿管下段结石的疗效和安全性。 方法　总结ESWL和PL治疗输尿管下段结石 3 75例的临床资料 ,其中ESWL组 190例 ,PL组 185例。结果　ESWL组单次碎石成功率为 60 .5 %(115 /190 ) ,PL组为 96.2 %(178/185 ) ;ESWL组术后 4周结石排净率为 66.3 %(12 6/190 ) ,PL组为 98.3 %(175 /178)。结论　PL治疗输尿管下段结石的疗效明显优于ESWL。     

Extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy in patients with distal ureteral calculi does not influence the prostate specific antigen value.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Distal ureteral calculi can be treated with extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy (SWL) in situ, which has a high rate of success. As the prostate is in vicinity of this part of the ureter, it is possible that the shockwaves may pass through the prostate also. We evaluated the effect of SWL on the serum concentration of prostate specific antigen (PSA). PATIENTS AND METHODS: A total of 44 men with distal ureteral calculi located a maximum of 20 mm from the ureteral orifice and without any history of recent urinary tract infection, benign prostatic hyperplasia, or prostate cancer underwent SWL with the Dornier HM-4 lithotripter. Their serum PSA values were measured 5 minutes before SWL as well as 3 hours and 1, 7, and 30 days afterward. The differences of these PSA values were estimated. From a control group of 10 healthy donors, two consecutive PSA values were obtained 30 days apart. RESULTS: Of these patients, 93% (41/44) were stone free within 1 month according to plain radiographs and ultrasonography. No statistically significant difference was observed between the PSA concentration before and after treatment or between the patients who underwent SWL and the control group. CONCLUSION: Treatment of distal ureteral calculi with SWL does not affect the serum PSA concentration.     

膨宫机在输尿管镜手术处理输尿管结石合并息肉的应用价值

目的 评价膨宫机在输尿管镜碎石取石术处理输尿管结石合并息肉中的应用价值,探讨输尿管结石合并息肉的处理技巧.方法 回顾我科行输尿管镜碎石取石术术中发现结石合并息肉的52例患者临床资料,其中输尿管上段结石18例,中下段结石34例,25例采用膨宫机持续灌注生理盐水扩张法行弹道碎石取石术(膨宫机辅助组),27例采用挂高水袋配合人工注水扩张法行弹道碎石取石术(传统碎石组);两组术中均常规留置双J管;比较两组的总手术时间、碎石时间、结石清除率、术中及术后并发症情况.结果 52例患者均全部成功碎石,无一例中转开放手术,两组均无输尿管断裂、撕脱并发症发生,传统碎石组1例术中发生输尿管穿孔.膨宫机辅助组与传统碎石组的总手术时间分别为31.2±5.1 VS 37.0±6.2 min (t=-3.68,P=0.0006<0.05),碎石时间分别为6.5±1.4 VS 9.4±1.5 min(t=-7.19,p=0.0000<0.05);传统碎石组有1例上段结石术中上移至肾盂,术后采用体外冲击波碎石清除结石.两组患者术后均得到3个月~1年随访,超声复查均未见结石残留及输尿管狭窄并发症发生.结论 术中应用膨宫机持续灌注生理盐水扩张输尿管结合一定的弹道碎石技巧能使术野保持清晰,可明显减少总手术时间、碎石及清石时间,疗效确切,在输尿管镜处理输尿管结石合并息肉中有重要的临床应用价值.     

急诊输尿管镜治疗输尿管结石并顽固性肾绞痛的应用价值

目的：探讨急诊输抹管镜下取（碎）石术瀹疗输尿管结石外顽剧性肾绞痛的临床应用价值。方法：采用急诊输尿管镜下取（碎）白术治疗输尿管结石并顽固性肾绞痛患者300例,其中上段结石35例,中段结石87例,下段结石178例。较小结石用取石钳取出,较大者用气压弹道碎石。结果：上、中、下段结石治疗成功率分别为74．3％、95．4％、97．75％;未出现输尿管黏膜撕脱、断裂、菌血症等严重并发症。结论：急诊输尿管镜下治疗输尿管结石并顽固性肾绞痛安全有效,损伤小,可作为首选方法之一。     

输尿管镜钬激光碎石与气压弹道碎石的比较

目的：比较输尿管镜下钬激光碎石术与气压弹道碎石术治疗输尿管结石的疗效与安全性。方法：回顾性分析输尿管镜下治疗76例输尿管结石患者的临床资料,其中采用钬激光碎石治疗36例（钬激光组）．气压弹道碎石治疗40例（气压弹道组）。结果：钬激光组平均术中碎石时间为8min,明显短于气压弹道组15min（P〈0．01）。钬激光组碎石成功率为97．2％,明显高于气压弹道碎石组的87．5％（P〈0．01）。两组手术均较安全,无明显相关并发症出现。结论：钬激光碎石术的有效性优于气压弹道碎石术,是一种治疗输尿管结石安全、高效的方法。     

Comparative study of extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy outcomes for proximal and distal ureteric stones

Objective To assess the efficacy of extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL) monotherapy for isolated proximal ureteral calculi and compare it to that for isolated distal calculi. Patient and methods We treated 68 patients with isolated ureteral stones using MPL 9000. Stones were located in the proximal and distal ureters in 44 and 24 patients, respectively. Patients were stratified according to stone burden and degree of obstruction. Data of all patients were prospectively collected for stone burden, stone localization, number of sessions, number of shock waves, stone-free rates (SFRs), complications, re-treatment rates and auxiliary procedures. Outcomes regarding ureteral localization were compared. Results The overall SFR was 85.3% with a 41.2% re-treatment and 17.6% auxiliary procedure rate. The mean number of shock waves applied for each stone was not different among the two ureteral locations. The SFRs were 86.3% and 79.1% for proximal and distal ureteral stones, respectively (P = 0.17). For the group with stones <100 mm2, the SFR was 85.4% and 89.5% for the proximal and distal ureter, respectively. Although the degree of obstruction did not affect SFR of the entire group (P = 0.12) and the proximal ureter group (P = 0.96), it adversely affected SFR in the distal ureter (P = 0.017). Conclusions ESWL outcomes for the ureteral calculi support the use of lithotripsy particularly for stones <100 mm2. Treatment efficacy was not significantly different among stones localized in proximal and distal ureters. Degree of obstruction did not affect the ESWL outcomes in the proximal ureter, but it adversely affected SFR in the distal ureter.     

改良体位钬激光碎石联合套石篮对复杂性输尿管上段结石的疗效分析

目的分析改良体位钬激光碎石联合套石篮对复杂性输尿管上段结石的疗效。 方法将110例复杂性输尿管上段结石患者按随机数字表分为常规组与改良组，各55例，其中常规组接受常规钬激光碎石联合套石篮治疗，改良组接受改良体位钬激光碎石联合套石篮治疗，改良方法：取改良的特伦德伦伯格（Trendelenburg）体位，并旁置输尿管导管持续注水。对比两组的临床资料。 结果改良组单次碎石成功率为100.00%，明显高于常规组的88.68%（P<0.05），2组总碎石成功率、结石清除率均相近（P>0.05）；改良组碎石时间和总手术时间均短于常规组（P<0.05），改良组总住院费用少于常规组（P<0.05）；改良组尿路感染、总并发症发生率、复发率分别为0.00%、1.89%、0.00%，均低于常规组的11.32%、18.87%、13.21%（均P<0.05）。 结论对复杂性输尿管上段结石采用改良体位钬激光碎石联合套石篮可提高手术效果，减少总住院费用。     

Current practice patterns in the management of upper urinary tract calculi in the north central United States

PURPOSE: To determine the current practice patterns in the management of upper urinary tract calculi in a large group of urologists in the north central United States. MATERIALS AND METHODS: An email survey was sent to 790 practicing members of the North Central Section of the American Urological Association. The survey consisted of questions pertaining to practice and training background, and case scenarios with treatment options for upper urinary tract calculi of different sizes at various locations. The responses were then statistically analyzed to determine practice trends. RESULTS: Seven urologists did not fill out the survey, as they did not manage patients with stone disease. The overall response rate was 23% (167/783). Although more than 75% of urologists were trained to perform extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy (SWL), ureteroscopy (URS), and percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL) during their residency, only 61% and 17% were trained to perform open stone surgery (OSS) and medical expulsive therapy (MET), respectively. Twelve percent of respondents were fellowship trained in endourology. Observation was most commonly recommended for asymptomatic renal calculi <5 mm in size (92%). Although SWL continues to be the most commonly utilized therapy for renal (43%-92%) and proximal ureteral calculi <20 mm in size (29%-51%), and PCNL for renal calculi >20 mm in size (72%-92%), many urologists (48%) favored PCNL for lower pole calculi 10 to 20 mm in size. Use of URS was mostly favored for distal (44%-90%) and proximal ureteral calculi (23%-46%), while MET was recommended for small ureteral calculi <5 mm in size (25%-32%). Fellowship-trained endourologists, academic urologists, and urologists in practice for less than 5 years were more likely to utilize URS, PCNL, and MET, and less likely to utilize SWL for urinary calculi. CONCLUSION: The results of this survey suggest that practice patterns for treatment of stone disease match the treatment approach recommended in the published literature. This information can be further utilized for assessment of guidelines for the treatment of stone disease.