Development Methodology of the Novel Endoscopic Stone Treatment Step 2/A Training/Assessment Curriculum and a Roadmap on Developing Hands-on Training Curriculums in Future: An International Collaborative Work by European Association of Urology Sections

Background: Basic simulation training in endourology was established with the endoscopic stone treatment step 1 (EST-s1), which is now recognized worldwide for training and examination. Following on from EST-s1, the endoscopic stone treatment step 2 (EST-s2) was started by the European Association of Urology (EAU) sections. Objective: We describe the methodology used in the development of EST-s2 assessment curriculum. Materials and Methods: The "full-life cycle curriculum development" template was followed for curriculum development, focusing on intermediate training of EST protocol with complex endourologic tasks. A cognitive task analysis (CTA) was run in accordance with EAU Urolithiasis guidelines. The protocol and its details underwent a first consensus by Delphi method with EAU Urolithiasis Section experts in March 2017. Once the outcome and metrics were decided, curriculum development was carried out. Purpose-built stones were developed, and simulator system requirement was defined. Preliminary testing was done in European Urology Residents Education Programme 2019 and in phase five the protocol was finalized with full tutor instruction sheet. Results: The EST-s2/A curriculum development took 38 months and involved EAU Uro-technology and urolithiasis sections with coordination from the European School of Urology training group. Starting from the initial CTA, a 1277-word revision with preliminary task description was produced. Nine intermediate skills were identified and included in the final training protocol. The training content and session evaluations were carried out by 26 experts and 16 final year trainees, respectively. Although the experts agreed that EST-s2/A protocol was well structured (96%), covered the complex endourologic maneuvers (92%), and was useful to optimize and improve hands-on-training (HoT) sessions (92%), the overall evaluation was scored 4.25/5 by trainees. Conclusion: We describe the development methodology for intermediate EST curriculum, which also provides a roadmap on developing other HoT protocols in future. Patients Summary: In this report we described the development of the novel intermediate training curriculum for EST, called EST-s2, which took 3 years of collaborative work inside the EAU. This article is aimed to strengthen the standards in curriculum development and clearly describe the background of this new EAU official endourology protocol

Alkalinizing Agents: A Review of Prescription, Over-the-Counter, and Medical Food Supplements.

Introduction Kidney stones affect 1 in every 11 people in the United States each year. There is a significant high recurrence rate without a stone prevention protocol. Alkali citrate is beneficial in decreasing stone recurrence, but due to the cost and gastrointestinal side effects there is a low adherence rate. This study aims to serve as a review of some of the most commonly used alkalizing over‐ the‐ counter supplements that are advertised to prevent and treat kidney stones. Methods Data was gathered by a comprehensive online literature search and company inquiries for kidney stone prevention supplements. An additional informal poll of the authors selected supplements that are most commonly taken by their patients. A total of eight supplements were evaluated for cost, alkali equivalent provided, dosing and regulatory information. Results Eight of the most commonly used supplements were reviewed with a focus on alkalizing agents. Information reviewed revealed dosing recommendations resulting in decreased citrate alkali equivalents per day compared to prescription‐strength potassium citrate. Cost, peer‐reviewed study results and regulatory data were reviewed, tabulated and analyzed. Cost per alkali equivalent was substantially decreased for each supplement compared to the prescribed drug. All supplements were found to be readily available online. Conclusion Over‐ the‐ counter alkalizing agents are available to patients and may be an appropriate alternative to cost prohibitive potassium citrate when treating urolithiasis patients. Additional testing will be necessary in the future to determine the efficacy of these supplements in the treatment and prevention of urinary stone disease

Variations in the mineral content of bottled 'carbonated or sparkling' water across Europe : a comparison of 126 brands across 10 countries

Kidney stone disease is a common disease with high recurrence rates. Sufficient intake of water is the cornerstone in primary prevention of stone disease. However, the mineral composition of water can affect urinary minerals and influence stone formation. The aim of this study is to assess the variation in the mineral composition of bottled sparkling or carbonated drinking water across Europe. The two largest supermarket chains in each participating country were visited to obtain data on mineral composition regarding bicarbonate, calcium, magnesium, potassium, sodium and sulphates of sparkling or carbonated waters by reading the ingredient labels on the bottles supplied by the manufacturers. Alternatively, the web-shops of these supermarkets were consulted. In total, 126 sparkling water brands across ten European countries were analysed regarding mineral composition. The median concentrations per mineral varied greatly. The greatest variation in median mineral content was found for sodium and sulphates with levels ranging from 3.1 mg/l to 63.0 mg/l and 6.0 mg/l to 263.0 mg/l respectively. A wide distribution of calcium content was found in Switzerland, with calcium levels reaching up to 581.6 mg/l. This study confirms that the mineral composition of sparkling or carbonated water varies greatly across Europe. Patients with kidney stone disease should be aware that the mineral content of water may influence stone formation and be mindful of the great variation that exists between different water brands. Mineral water can be a source of potential promotors or inhibitors of stone formation and patients and urologists need to be mindful of this

The european urology residents education programme hands-on training format: 4 years of hands-on training improvements from the European School of Urology

Background: The European School of Urology (ESU) started the European Urology Residents Education Programme (EUREP) in 2003 for final year urology residents, with hands-on training (HOT) added later in 2007. Objective: To assess the geographical reach of EUREP, trainee demographics, and individual quality feedback in relation to annual methodology improvements in HOT. Design, setting, and participants: From September 2014 to October 2017 (four EUREP courses) several new features have been applied to the HOT format of the EUREP course: 1:1 training sessions (2015), fixed 60-min time slots (2016), and standardised teaching methodology (2017). The resulting EUREP HOT format was verified by collecting and prospectively analysing the following data: total number of participants attending different HOT courses; participants’ age; country of origin; and feedback obtained annually. Results and limitations: A total of 796 participants from 54 countries participated in 1450 HOT sessions over the last 4 yr. This included 294 (20%) ureteroscopy (URS) sessions, 237 (16.5%) transurethral resection (TUR) sessions, 840 (58%) basic laparoscopic sessions, and 79 (5.5%) intermediate laparoscopic sessions. While 712 residents (89%) were from Europe, 84 (11%) were from non-European nations. Of the European residents, most came from Italy (16%), Germany (15%), Spain (15%), and Romania (8%). Feedback for the basic laparoscopic session showed a constant improvement in scores over the last 4 yr, with the highest scores achieved last year. This included feedback on improvements in tutor rating (p = 0.017), organisation (p < 0.001), and personal experience with EUREP (p < 0.001). Limitations lie in the difficulties associated with the use of an advanced training curriculum with wet laboratory or cadaveric courses in this format, although these could be performed in other training centres in conjunction with EUREP. Conclusions: The EUREP trainee demographics show that the purpose of the course is being achieved, with excellent feedback reported. While European trainees dominate the demographics, participation from a number of non-European countries suggests continued ESU collaboration with other national societies and wider dissemination of simulation training worldwide.EUREP is supported by educational grant from Olympus.info:eu-repo/semantics/acceptedVersio

Global Variations in the Mineral Content of Bottled Still and Sparkling Water and a Description of the Possible Impact on Nephrological and Urological Diseases

Kidney stone disease (KSD) is a complex disease. Besides the high risk of recurrence, its association with systemic disorders contributes to the burden of disease. Sufficient water intake is crucial for prevention of KSD, however, the mineral content of water might influence stone formation, bone health and cardiovascular (CVD) risk. This study aims to analyse the variations in mineral content of bottled drinking water worldwide to evaluate the differences and describes the possible impact on nephrological and urological diseases. The information regarding mineral composition (mg/L) on calcium, bicarbonate, magnesium, sodium and sulphates was read from the ingredients label on water bottles by visiting the supermarket or consulting the online shop. The bottled waters in two main supermarkets in 21 countries were included. The evaluation shows that on a global level the mineral composition of bottled drinkable water varies enormously. Median bicarbonate levels varied by factors of 12.6 and 57.3 for still and sparkling water, respectively. Median calcium levels varied by factors of 18.7 and 7.4 for still and sparkling water, respectively. As the mineral content of bottled drinking water varies enormously worldwide and mineral intake through water might influence stone formation, bone health and CVD risk, urologists and nephrologists should counsel their patients on an individual level regarding water intake

Global Variations in the Mineral Content of Bottled Still and Sparkling Water and a Description of the Possible Impact on Nephrological and Urological Diseases

Kidney stone disease (KSD) is a complex disease. Besides the high risk of recurrence, its association with systemic disorders contributes to the burden of disease. Sufficient water intake is crucial for prevention of KSD, however, the mineral content of water might influence stone formation, bone health and cardiovascular (CVD) risk. This study aims to analyse the variations in mineral content of bottled drinking water worldwide to evaluate the differences and describes the possible impact on nephrological and urological diseases. The information regarding mineral composition (mg/L) on calcium, bicarbonate, magnesium, sodium and sulphates was read from the ingredients label on water bottles by visiting the supermarket or consulting the online shop. The bottled waters in two main supermarkets in 21 countries were included. The evaluation shows that on a global level the mineral composition of bottled drinkable water varies enormously. Median bicarbonate levels varied by factors of 12.6 and 57.3 for still and sparkling water, respectively. Median calcium levels varied by factors of 18.7 and 7.4 for still and sparkling water, respectively. As the mineral content of bottled drinking water varies enormously worldwide and mineral intake through water might influence stone formation, bone health and CVD risk, urologists and nephrologists should counsel their patients on an individual level regarding water intake

Adjuvant Radiation Therapy Following Radical Prostatectomy for Pathologic T3 or Margin-positive Prostate Cancer: Are the EAU Guidelines Correct?

Objective: To present a critical review of the published data as to whether adjuvant radiation therapy (RT) is the preferred first line of management for pathologic T3 or margin-positive prostate cancer (PCa) after radical prostatectomy (RP), which has level 1B evidence in the European Association of Urology (EAU) guidelines. Methods: Three randomised studies have been published comparing immediate adjuvant RT and salvage treatment in patients with pT3 and/or margin-positive PCa. The concept of these trials was critically evaluated, and the translation of the outcome of these trials to daily clinical practice is discussed. Results: Current evidence is insufficient to subject all patients with pT3 and/or margin-positive PCa to adjuvant RT after RP, and it should be reserved for a subset of patients with adverse prognostic factors after RP, such as seminal vesicle invasion. Conclusions: The data that can be retrieved from the trials exploring the benefit of adjuvant RT following RP cannot be translated to routine clinical urologic practice, because the field of PCa is changing rapidly and the patients present at an earlier stage. A trial evaluating immediate versus salvage RT should answer the question of who needs adjuvant treatment and when. The recommendation concerning adjuvant RT should thus be adapted in the EAU guidelines. (C) 2011 European Association of Urology. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserve

Fluoroscopy-use during ureterorenoscopy: are urologists concerned about radiation exposure? A nationwide survey in Belgium and The Netherlands

Introduction: To evaluate the use and awareness of radiation during URS among Belgian and Dutch urologists. Material and methods: An online questionnaire was send to all members of the Belgian and Dutch Association of Urology. Results: 170 urologists finished the complete questionnaire. 10% of the respondents are not familiar with the ALARA-principle. 29% starts with a KUB and 48% makes an XRPG at the beginning of the procedure. 85% uses fluoroscopy to place a wire or ureteral access sheet, 18% during stone treatment, 59% to screen for missed stones or calyces, 90% to place a JJ-stent or ureter-catheter and 23% to check for extravasation. 82% do not document radiation data. 51% does not wear a dosimeter during fluoroscopy. Almost all wear a lead apron during fluoroscopy, 47% uses additional thyroid shields and only 4% uses lead glasses. 88% intentionally reduces fluoroscopy time, 75% reduces the exposed area with a diaphragm, 72% brings the radiation source close to the patient and 44% uses pulsed fluoroscopy. Conclusion: There is a wide variety in the use and awareness of radiation during URS. To further reduce radiation and its negative effect for patients and medical staff, awareness about radiation safety should increase among urologists