Quantifying treatment burden: the patient burden score a study of 758 patients across three clinical urologic scenarios

Objectives To develop a comprehensive scale that measures the three burden types of any treatment, including expected, unexpected (complications), and need for ancillary procedures. Methods A panel of experts created a scale that assessed the burden of all aspects of treatment, including hospitaliza...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:World journal of urology 2024-11, Vol.42 (1), p.650
Hauptverfasser: Gofrit, Ofer N., Goldberg, S. Nahum, Lorber, Amitay, Duvdevani, Mordechai, Wygoda, Marc, Hidas, Guy, Yutkin, Vladimir, Pikarsky, Liat Appelbaum
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
Beschreibung
Zusammenfassung:Objectives To develop a comprehensive scale that measures the three burden types of any treatment, including expected, unexpected (complications), and need for ancillary procedures. Methods A panel of experts created a scale that assessed the burden of all aspects of treatment, including hospitalization, anesthesia, surgery, and follow-up. The total score is defined as the burden score (BS). BS was calculated retrospectively for patients in three clinical scenarios in urology, each with two acceptable treatment options: patients with a small renal mass (T1a) treated with either partial nephrectomy (PN, 139 patients) or percutaneous ablation (PA, 83 patients), patients with bladder cancer (stages T2-4a, N0, M0) treated with radical cystectomy (RC, 162 patients) or trimodal therapy (TMT, 88 patients), and patients with upper ureteral stones ≤ 10 mm treated with either ureteroscopy (137 patients) or extracorporeal shock-wave lithotripsy (SWL, 150 patients). Results Both PN and PA provided excellent oncological results (5-year recurrence-free survival ≥ 97%) and low complication rates. However, the BS of PN was more than twice that of PA (27.3 ± 7.7 vs. 12.5 ± 6.4, p  
ISSN:0724-4983
1433-8726
1433-8726
DOI:10.1007/s00345-024-05378-3