Presented by: Sergey Sukhikh Phd
Moscow state university of medicine and dentistry named after A.I. Evdokimov

Introduction

Urolithiasis is one of the most common urological diseases in adults. Due to the high risk of recurrent stone formation causing repeated surgical interventions, the issue of effective urinary stone metaphylaxis is very important.

Materials

To study the current state of the problem of urolithiasis metaphylaxis among Russian urologists, an anonymous questionnaire was applied. 1,238 specialists completed the questionnaire. The database compiled from the received responses was processed and presented with descriptive statistics in the form of tables and charts.

 

Results

,

According to the survey, more than half of the 831 (67.1%) specialists specialized in the treatment of urolithiasis. Only 521 (69.6%) urologists specializing in surgical treatment of urolithiasis give a patient a stone fragment to analyze its chemical composition. At the same time, half of the respondents reported that less than 10% of patients come to them for further metaphylaxis. One of the main reasons for not analyzing the chemical composition of the stone was the fact that 877 (70,84%) specialists indicated the inaccessibility of analysis under the state guarantee program, 503 (40,63%) specialists indicated the patient's satisfaction with the results of minimally invasive surgical treatment. 1180 (96,8%) respondents practiced the prophylaxis of recurrent calculi formation, but only 336 (28,47%) performed comprehensive metabolic examination of all patients followed by prescription of drug therapy and appropriate diet.

Conclusion

Our survey revealed low involvement of urologists at the outpatient level in the process of conservative treatment and metaphylaxis of urolithiasis, low activity of urologists in performing complex metabolic study and comprehensive prevention of recurrent stone formation, low percentage of performing chemical composition analysis of stone and low activity of urologists in performing primary litholytic therapy of urate stones. Based on this analysis of the responses of most Russian urologists, it is possible to formulate recommendations to remove the obstacles to providing patients with urolithiasis with quality medical care in terms of conservative therapy and metaphylaxis of urolithiasis.

Funding

No

Co-Authors

Vigen Malkhasyan, MD
Moscow state university of medicine and dentistry named after A.I. Evdokimov

Magomed Gazimiev, MD
National medical research urological center

Alexei Martov, MD
A.I. Burnazyan SRC FMBC

Nariman Gadzhiev, MD
N.I.Pirogov High Medical Technologies Clinic

Dmitry Pushkar, MD
Moscow state university of medicine and dentistry named after A.I. Evdokimov