Many kidney stone patients rely on opioids to ease stent pain, but a new study published in the AUA Journals suggests that they may not be effective at relieving post-operative pain!

Researchers used a PROMIS assessment to determine the effectiveness of opioids in easing stent pain. Surprisingly, patients on opioids experienced the same level of pain intensity and interference as those who were not.

With the U.S. surpassing 100,000 drug-related deaths in 2020¹, many urologists are exploring alternative pain management protocols to avoid prescribing opioids. Advise patients to opt for opioid-free treatments, they are safer and more effective!

Read more here: The impact of ureteral stent omission and an opiate-free protocol on patient reported outcomes following ureteroscopy

1. 100,000 Americans died of drug overdoses in 12 months during the pandemic

Despite rapid advancements in kidney stone treatments, stone recurrence rates remain high. Assts Prof Kyle Wood, M.D., attributes this phenomenon to urologists’ low levels of compliance with treatment guidelines.

“We’re very good at surgically treating stones,” Asst. Prof Wood, M.D., said. “But we’ve done a pretty poor job as a practice at managing kidney stones. I think the biggest issue is we haven’t even followed our guidelines.”

Read more here: Stone management often falls short

Complete kidney stone clearance is the target outcome for most urologists. However, recent studies suggest that this may not align with some patients’ expectations!

According to Dr Necole M. Streeper, urologists may be overtreating patients to meet stone-free targets. This is causing frustration among patients who prefer to leave asymptomatic stones untreated, rather than undergo repeated surgeries.

Utilizing surveys like WISQOL and SF-36 to gauge patients’ quality of life can help urologists better understand their patients’ goals and set more accurate outcome targets.

Read more here: Should Asymptomatic Renal Stones Be Surgically Treated? Pro-Observation

A new study presented by Teoh et al. highlights the gender inequality in urology.

Major associations consistently failed to include female urologists in their meetings, with 181 sessions led by all-male panels, and an average of 87% of male faculty members in attendance. In addition, male faculty received more opportunities to participate than female faculty in the same lower quartile of the H-index.

How can we better embrace diversity? No more manels is just the first step towards a more inclusive Urology.

Source: A Quantitative Analysis Investigating the Prevalence of “Manels” in Major Urology Meetings