Juliebø-Jones P, Keller EX, Tailly T, Æsøy MS, Esperto F, Mykoniatis I, de Coninck V, Pietropaolo A.
World J Urol. 2021 Nov 17:1-2. doi: 10.1007/s00345-021-03883-3 FREE ARTICLE
Abstract
No abstract available.
Comment Hans-Göran Tiselius
In my mind this Letter is an important contribution to the continuously on-going debate on how patients with urolithiasis should be treated. It is not difficult to foresee what residents who seldom or never get in touch with SWL will decide or recommend for their patients. During past years it is easy to learn from the literature that the preferred treatment modalities are endoscopic. This treatment approach also is extremely thrilling for our young colleagues. Nevertheless, SWL carried out in an optimal way also can be exciting. To meet patients afterwards who have had their stones removed non-invasively with a method not requiring anesthesia can be a rewarding and positive experience.
I would like to emphasize and cite the authors that it is as important to present SWL as “…more than a side order.” Moreover, the conclusion that the treatment choices never should be dictated by the procedures that we enjoy most, is a statement worthwhile to take into our mind. This is particularly important when we discuss health economy as well as treatment during and after pandemics.
It is important to emphasize that whereas endoscopy is unsuccessful without sufficient expertise, the same is true for SWL. Although outstanding results of modern endoscopy is undisputable, it is my impression that endoscopy has a higher degree of handicraft satisfaction and amusement for the urologist. But SWL can give a similar feeling if carried out in a strict and optimized way. It is therefore important that young urologists are given appropriate education and training not only in endoscopy, but also in SWL.
Hans-Göran Tiselius