Abstract
Introduction and Objectives: Percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL) is a complex multistep surgery that has shown a steady increase in use for the past decade in the United States. We sought to evaluate the trends and factors associated with PCNL usage across New York State (NYS). Our goal was to characterize patient demographics and socioeconomic factors across high-, medium-, and low-volume institutions.
Materials and Methods: We searched the NYS, Statewide Planning and Research Cooperative System (SPARCS) database from 2006 to 2014 using ICD-9 Procedure Codes 55.04 (percutaneous nephrostomy with fragmentation) for all hospital discharges. Patient demographics including age, gender, race, insurance status, and length of hospital stay were obtained. We characterized each hospital as a low-, medium-, or high-volume center by year. Patient and hospital demographics were compared and reported using chi-square analysis and Student's t-test for categorical and continuous variables, respectively, with statistical significance as a p-value of <0.05.
Results: We identified a total of 4576 procedures performed from 2006 to 2014 at a total of 77 hospitals in NYS (Table 1). Total PCNL volume performed across all NYS hospitals increased in the past decade, with the greatest number of procedures performed in 2012 to 2013. Low-volume institutions were more likely to provide care to minority populations (21.4% vs 17.3%, p < 0.001) and those with Medicaid (25.5% vs 21.5%, p < 0.001). High-volume institutions provided care to patients with private insurance (42.1% vs 34.0%, p < 0.001) and had a shorter length of stay (3.3 days vs 4.1 days, p < 0.001).
Conclusion: Our data provide insight into the patient demographics of those treated at high-, medium-, and low-volume hospitals for PCNL across NYS. Significant differences in race, insurance status, and length of stay were noted between low- and high-volume institutions, indicating that racial and socioeconomic factors play a role in access to care at high-volume centers.
Keywords: endourology, stone disease, PCNL, health care disparities
Introduction
Percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL) is the gold standard treatment modality for renal stones >2 cm and lower pole stones >1 cm.1,2 PCNL is associated with high stone clearance rates up to 95%, but comes at the cost of increased complications.3,4 Complication rates can be as high as 15%, including severe bleeding, infection, urinary extravasation, and injury to adjacent organs, most notably the colon.5,6
Leow et al. studied the trends in utilization of PCNL across the United States and noted an increase from 6.7% (2003) to 8.9% (2008) before plateauing at 9.0% (2008–2011), and later declining to 7.2% (2014). Furthermore, the annual incidence of PCNL declined from 5.49/100,000 in 2003 to 5.34/100,000 in 2014. Although utilization has decreased, complication rates of the procedure have increased from 6.6% in 2003 to 33.1% in 2014.7 Although these results provide insight regarding the climate of PCNL in the entire nation, it is often difficult to extrapolate the findings to specific states and regions. Furthermore, there is limited data on socioeconomic factors and insurance status playing a role with these findings. Review of a national database revealed that patients undergoing PCNL with public insurance (Medicaid or Medicare) were more likely to experience a complication than privately insured patients.8 This is likely attributed to these patients exhibiting more medical comorbidities and can be further examined to prevent readmissions and prevent complications or poor care that may affect Centers of Medicare and Medicaid Services reimbursement rates. Understanding the trends of PCNL on a nationwide as well as regional level is important in evaluating how to deliver more effective high-quality health care. In addition, we can examine strengths and deficits in the delivery of that care.9
The New York State (NYS) Statewide Planning and Research Cooperative System (SPARCS) database houses information regarding all hospital discharges across NYS. This database contains information regarding patient demographics/characteristics, insurance status, diagnoses, treatments, procedures, and length of stay. This information is required to be submitted on a monthly basis by an assigned administrator/coordinator.
In our study, we examined the trends of PCNL utilization across NYS, allowing us to examine rural, suburban, and urban regions with high-, medium-, and low-volume institutions to gain a thorough understanding for significant stone burden care in our state.
Materials and Methods
The SPARCS database was queried from January 2006 to December 2014 using ICD-9 procedure codes 55.03 (percutaneous nephrostomy without fragmentation) and 55.04 (percutaneous nephrostomy with fragmentation) examining all hospital discharges across NYS. Reports with duplication or incomplete data were excluded. Demographic variables include patient age, gender, race, insurance status, and length of stay. Each hospital was characterized as a low-, medium-, or high-volume center. All hospitals were ranked in order of increasing procedure on a yearly basis and then split into three equivalent groups or tertiles based on whole number cutoff points for the annual volume to characterize them as high- (top tertile), medium- (middle tertile), or low (bottom tertile)-volume institutions. The hospitals were categorized by location within a rural vs suburban vs urban setting. Finally, the teaching status of each designated hospital was examined as follows: nonteaching, minor teaching (academic center that is a teaching hospital without a medical school), and major teaching (academic center that is a teaching hospital with a medical school).
Statistical analysis
Patient and hospital demographics were compared using chi-square analysis and Student's t-test for categorical and continuous variables, respectively. Univariable logistic regression was performed to compare demographics and socioeconomic variables between high-, medium-, and low-volume institutions and also urban vs rural settings. Odds ratios with 95% confidence intervals were reported with p-values <0.05 considered statistically significant. Statistics were calculated using Stata, version 12 (College Station, TX).
Results
Between 2006 and 2014, the number of PCNLs performed across NYS increased by 52% overall, with the highest total in 2012 as given in Table 1. Among low- and medium-volume institutions, there was an average increase of PCNL procedures from 2.30 to 3.16 per year and from 9.36 to 14.29 per year resulting in an increase of 37.3% and 52.7%, respectively. As for high-volume institutions, the average volume increased from 20.29 to 55.0 for an increase of 171%.
Table 1.
Hospital Level Variates
| 2006 | 2007 | 2008 | 2009 | 2010 | 2011 | 2012 | 2013 | 2014 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Definition (minimum–maximum number of procedures per year) | |||||||||
| High | 15–26 | 19–35 | 19–31 | 24–38 | 29–65 | 36–79 | 38–112 | 49–105 | 34–105 |
| Medium | 7–14 | 7–12 | 7–14 | 8–23 | 8–24 | 11–31 | 14–32 | 11–34 | 11–27 |
| Low | 1–6 | 1–6 | 1–6 | 1–7 | 1–7 | 1–10 | 1–13 | 1–10 | 1–10 |
| Number of hospitals per category | |||||||||
| High | 7 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 4 | 4 | 3 | 3 | 4 |
| Medium | 14 | 13 | 14 | 11 | 11 | 12 | 10 | 11 | 14 |
| Low | 54 | 57 | 54 | 58 | 54 | 56 | 55 | 63 | 59 |
| Number of procedures per category | |||||||||
| High | 142 | 129 | 125 | 151 | 154 | 192 | 206 | 205 | 220 |
| Medium | 131 | 122 | 132 | 150 | 155 | 211 | 222 | 212 | 200 |
| Low | 124 | 120 | 140 | 143 | 144 | 181 | 211 | 209 | 183 |
| Average number of procedures per hospital | |||||||||
| High | 20.29 | 27.50 | 25.00 | 30.20 | 38.50 | 48.00 | 68.67 | 68.33 | 55.00 |
| Medium | 9.36 | 9.38 | 9.43 | 13.64 | 14.09 | 17.58 | 22.20 | 19.27 | 14.29 |
| Low | 2.30 | 2.11 | 2.59 | 2.51 | 2.72 | 3.29 | 3.91 | 3.37 | 3.16 |
The patient demographics and characteristics as well as hospital geography and teaching status are shown across institutions with low, medium, or high volume in Table 2. The average patient age (standard deviation) for low-, medium-, and high-volume institutions was 54.0 (16.1), 54.9 (16.0), and 54.4 (15.7) years, respectively, p = 0.31. A higher proportion of female patients (53.4%–56.4%) underwent PCNL regardless of hospital volume status, but this was not significant (p = 0.66). Low-volume center ethnicity rates were 63.9% white, 10.5% black, 4.2% Asian, and 21.4% other. Medium volume distribution was 70.2% white, 8.3% black, 4.1% Asian, and 17.4% other. High-volume centers provided care for 65.1% whites, 12.2% blacks, 5.4% Asian, and 17.3% other. Compared with low-volume (21.4%) and high-volume centers (17.3%), minorities (non-white) were a smaller proportion of the patients treated at the high-volume centers (p < 0.001). As for insurance type, private insurance use was most pronounced at high-volume (42.1%) than at medium- (37.6%) and low-volume centers (34.0%) (p < 0.001). Medicaid patients were more common at low-volume centers (25.5%) than at medium- (21.5%) or high-volume centers (23.5%) (p < 0.001). Length of stay was lowest at high-volume centers with 3.3 days on average compared with 3.6 and 4.1 days at medium- and low-volume centers, respectively (p < 0.001).
Table 2.
Demographics of Hospitals and Patients
| Hospital volume | Low | Medium | High | p |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Total procedures (N) | 1507 | 1535 | 1534 | |
| Hospital classification | <0.001 | |||
| Urban | 1156 (76.7) | 1207 (78.6) | 1442 (94.0) | |
| Suburban | 343 (22.8) | 328 (21.4) | 92 (6.0) | |
| Rural | 8 (0.5) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | |
| Teaching status | <0.001 | |||
| Major teaching | 520 (34.5) | 940 (61.2) | 1202 (78.4) | |
| Minor teaching | 646 (42.9) | 457 (29.8) | 332 (21.6) | |
| Nonteaching | 339 (22.6) | 138 (9.0) | 0 (0) | |
| Race (%) | ||||
| White | 963 (63.9) | 1078 (70.2) | 998 (65.1) | <0.001 |
| Black | 158 (10.5) | 127 (8.3) | 187 (12.2) | |
| Asian | 64 (4.2) | 63 (4.1) | 83 (5.4) | |
| Other | 322 (21.4) | 267 (17.4) | 266 (17.3) | |
| Gender (%) | 0.657 | |||
| Male | 684 (45.4) | 721 (46) | 715 (46.6) | |
| Female | 823 (54.6) | 814 (54) | 819 (53.4) | |
| Age (SD) | 54.0 (16.1) | 54.9 (16.0) | 54.4 (15.7) | 0.308 |
| Insurance type (%) | <0.001 | |||
| Private | 513 (34.0) | 577 (37.6) | 646 (42.1) | |
| Medicare | 496 (33.0) | 529 (34.4) | 489 (31.9) | |
| Medicaid | 384 (25.5) | 330 (21.5) | 360 (23.5) | |
| Military | 11 (0.7) | 6 (0.4) | 1 (0.1) | |
| Self-pay | 73 (4.8) | 48 (3.1) | 33 (2.2) | |
| Other | 31 (2.0) | 45 (3.0) | 5 (0.3) | |
| Initial LOS (SD) | 4.1 (5.5) | 3.6 (5.0) | 3.3 (4.1) | <0.001 |
LOS = length of stay; SD = standard deviation.
When hospital geography was examined, urban hospital settings comprised the majority of PCNL procedures in all locations: low- (76.7%), medium- (78.6%), and high-volume centers (94.0%). No rural hospital was able to qualify as a high- or medium-volume institution. Almost all high-volume institutions were urban (94.0%) compared with suburban (6.0%) (p < 0.001). Similar trends were seen with teaching status with major teaching institutions comprising 34.5%, 61.2%, and 78.4% of low-, medium-, and high-volume centers, respectively. No nonteaching hospital was designated as a high-volume center, whereas major teaching institutions were more pronounced among medium- and high-volume centers (p < 0.001). Interestingly, the minor teaching institutions comprised the greatest proportion of low-volume hospitals (p < 0.001).
Discussion
PCNL is considered a complex endourologic procedure, which only a minority of urologists perform routinely, and of these, only 11% obtain percutaneous access by themselves.10 Furthermore, PCNL is considered a challenging procedure in inexperienced hands and/or on complex patients. As such, it would not be unusual to find a high level of regionalization in this field as well. Indeed, our study found an average PCNL volume increase of 171% for NYS high-volume institutions, compared with 37.3% and 52.7% for low- and medium-volume institutions, respectively, over 8 years. Stern et al. examined the national inpatient sample and found close to a twofold increase in PCNL utilization from 1998 to 2011.11 The lifetime prevalence of nephrolithiasis is increasing from 7.14% to 11.62%.12 It is possible that this increase in stone disease is attributed to increased imaging or increasing rates of diabetes mellitus and obesity. By 2030, it is estimated that stone prevalence will increase by 0.36% caused by obesity and by 0.72% for diabetes mellitus.13
Furthermore, our study also highlighted the impact of insurance status on the level of health care. Historically, the most notable disabling condition precluding access to quality health care in the United States has been inadequate health insurance.14 In our study, private insurance use was most significantly pronounced at high-volume (42.1%) compared with medium- (37.6%) and low-volume centers (34.0%) (p < 0.001). Medicaid patients were more commonly treated at low-volume (25.5%) than at medium- (21.5%) or high-volume centers (23.5%) (p < 0.001). In addition, almost all the high-volume-PCNL institutions were urban (94.0%) compared with suburban (6.0%) (p < 0.001). These data confirm the substantial role that socioeconomic and geographic factors play in accessing PCNL.
The consequences of this unequal access to care are obvious, being reflected in our study by the differences found in length of stay after PCNL between high-volume (3.3 days) and medium- and low-volume centers (3.6 and 4.1 days, p < 0.001, respectively), further emphasizing the importance of patient's demographic and socioeconomic factors that can explain differences in access of care to this challenging procedure.
Access to care is a complex topic with multiple individual and contextual variables that unequally influence general population trends in health and, ultimately, affect patient outcomes. These factors, which can be resource dependent (socioeconomic class and access) or nonresource dependent (e.g., psychologic, genetic, and cultural), interact dynamically in a complicated social network, rendering topics such as inequity and disparity difficult to analyze and address.15 The resource-dependent factors have become vital to guarantee access to high-quality medical care. This shift is significant and profoundly affects patient outcome.
Socioeconomic factors have been demonstrated as a disparity to care across multiple disciplines in medicine. Similar to our study, there have been differences in access to care and poorer outcomes in patients with regard to race, insurance status, treatment at high- vs low-volume settings, and lower median incomes. Feng et al. queried the SPARCS database identifying greater proportion of African American patients, Medicaid, and self-pay patients being treated at low-volume institutions where these groups were found to have higher rates of postoperative bleeding and in-hospital mortality rates for cervical spinal fusion.16 Similar findings were noted for hip-replacement procedures wherein patients of black race, lower median income, public insurance (Medicaid or Medicare), and treatment at a low-volume hospital had between 23% and 58% increased chance of 30-day readmission.17
When comparing these findings with patients who have undergone procedures for urologic conditions, similar conclusions can be drawn. Halpern et al. queried the SPARCS database and identified that non-white patients undergoing prostate biopsy had higher rates of infection and urinary retention within 30 days of biopsy.18 Brubaker et al. recently examined payer type and race with regard to the timing for stone surgery after emergency room (ER) discharge.19 Patients with Medicaid, Medicare, and self-pay had an increase of 46%, 42%, and 60% for the time to surgery, respectively, compared with their private insurance counterparts. Furthermore, when examining patients of black and Hispanic ethnicity, there was an increase of 36% and 20% compared with those with Caucasian descent. Kirshenbaum and coworkers examined the factors associated with delay of upfront ureteroscopy during ER admission.20 On multivariate regression models, they found that minorities, younger patients, publically/uninsured patients, and more comorbid patients had lower odds of undergoing upfront ureteroscopy. Similarly, higher complication rates with Medicare (17.1%) and Medicaid (16.9%) patients have been seen than private patients (12.3%, p < 0.001) for PCNL.8
In 2003, Birkmeyer et al. found that surgeon volume was inversely related to operative mortality rates among 474,108 patients who underwent one of eight procedures or cancer resections, including radical cystectomy, lung resection, and pancreatic resection.21 Other studies have found similar results regarding morbidity and mortality rates related to hospital and surgeon volume, in diverse surgical specialties.22–24 In urology, this phenomenon has been studied as well. Nuttall and coworkers reviewed the literature relating hospital or surgeon volume to health outcomes for three urologic cancer procedures.25 In their study, it was found that outcomes after radical prostatectomy and cystectomy are on average likely to be better if these procedures are performed by more experienced surgeons at high-volume centers. Another review showed evidence suggesting that increasing volume improves outcomes for radical prostatectomy.26 As one of the most complex stone surgery techniques, good proficiency in PCNL is established after 60 cases and excellence after >100 cases.27 Based on these findings, it may be appropriate to refer complex surgical patients to high-volume centers whenever possible.
Several limitations of our study must be acknowledged. The SPARCS database is a statewide database maintained by the New York Bureau of Health Informatics. It is unclear whether there is standardization with regard to data or whether reporting practices varied between all the institutions involved. It is possible these differences may have affected the data we collected. Although we had initially sought to use current procedural terminology (CPT) codes to accurately capture the patients who underwent PCNL, this was not possible given the database parameters. We instead used ICD-9 codes to capture patients who underwent PCNL and these codes were cross-referenced with our billing department to ensure we accurately captured the correct patient population. Furthermore, this is a retrospective study of NYS and our findings cannot be extrapolated on a national level. The hospitals involved were diverse in geographic location, size, patient population, and density, as well as academic status. Information specific to each individual surgeon such as case volume, overall experience, fellowship training, and particular case mix index/case complexity was not available. It is unclear whether a single surgeon could have also operated at another institution and this could have affected the data. We agree that these variables play a role in the quality of care and complication rates; however, we were unable to capture these with the database. Further studies with larger cohorts and on a national level can help support our findings and reveal any other disparities with access to care.
Conclusion
Our study helps demonstrate the trends in utilization of PCNL across NYS and factors related to access to care. During our study period, the rate of PCNL increased significantly and it was most pronounced in high-volume institutions. Furthermore, various differences in race, insurance status, and length of stay were noted between high- and low-volume institutions. Our study shows a regionalization of care, but also racial and socioeconomic factors that pose as barriers for access to care. Understanding of these disparities can help decrease patient-related morbidity and improve surgical outcomes.
Abbreviations Used
- ER
emergency room
- NYS
New York State
- PCNL
percutaneous nephrolithotomy
- SPARCS
Statewide Planning and Research Cooperative System
Author Disclosure Statement
No competing financial interests exist.
References
- 1. Assimos D, Krambeck A, Miller NL, et al. Surgical management of stones: American Urological Association/Endourological Society Guideline, PART I. J Urol 2016;196:1153–1160 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 2. Assimos D, Krambeck A, Miller NL, et al. Surgical management of stones: American Urological Association/Endourological Society Guideline, PART II. J Urol 2016;196:1161–1169 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 3. Albala DM, Assimos DG, Clayman RV, et al. Lower pole I: A prospective randomized trial of extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy and percutaneous nephrostolithotomy for lower pole nephrolithiasis-initial results. J Urol 2001;166:2072–2080 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 4. De S, Autorino R, Kim FJ, et al. Percutaneous nephrolithotomy versus retrograde intrarenal surgery: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur Urol 2015;67:125–137 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 5. Yamaguchi A, Skolarikos A, Buchholz NP, et al. Operating times and bleeding complications in percutaneous nephrolithotomy: A comparison of tract dilation methods in 5,537 patients in the Clinical Research Office of the endourological society percutaneous nephrolithotomy global study. J Endourol 2011;25:933–939 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 6. Patel NH, Schulman AA, Bloom JB, et al. Device-related adverse events during percutaneous nephrolithotomy: review of the manufacturer and user facility device experience database. J Endourol 2017;31:1007–1011 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 7. Leow JJ, Meyer CP, Wang Y, et al. Contemporary trends in utilization and perioperative outcomes of percutaneous nephrolithotomy in the United States from 2003 to 2014. J Endourol 2017;31:742–750 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 8. Tyson MD, 2nd, Humphreys MR. Postoperative complications after percutaneous nephrolithotomy: A contemporary analysis by insurance status in the United States. J Endourol 2014;28:291–297 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 9. Chughtai BI, Simma-Chiang V, Lee R, et al. Trends and utilization of laser prostatectomy in ambulatory surgical procedures for the treatment of benign prostatic hyperplasia in New York State (2000–2011). J Endourol 2015;29:700–706 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 10. Watterson JD, Soon S, Jana K. Access related complications during percutaneous nephrolithotomy: Urology versus radiology at a single academic institution. J Urol 2006;176:142–145 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 11. Stern KL, Tyson MD, Abdul-Muhsin HM, Humphreys MR. Contemporary trends in percutaneous nephrolithotomy in the United States: 1998–2011. Urology 2016;91:41–45 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 12. Turney BW, Reynard JM, Noble JG, Keoghane SR. Trends in urological stone disease. BJU Int 2012;109:1082–1087 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 13. Antonelli JA, Maalouf NM, Pearle MS, Lotan Y. Use of the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey to calculate the impact of obesity and diabetes on cost and prevalence of urolithiasis in 2030. Eur Urol 2014;66:724–729 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 14. Nayak JG, Gore JL. Accessing complex urologic surgery in the 21st century. Urol Oncol 2015;33:379–382 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 15. Feinstein JS. The relationship between socioeconomic status and health: A review of the literature. Milbank Q 1993;71:279–322 [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 16. Feng R, Finkelstein M, Bilal K, Oermann EK, Palese M, Caridi J. Trends and disparities in cervical spine fusion procedures utilization in the New York State. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2018;43:E601–E606 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 17. White RS, Sastow DL, Gaber-Baylis LK, Tangel V, Fisher AD, Turnbull ZA. Readmission rates and diagnoses following total hip replacement in relation to insurance payer status, race and ethnicity, and income status. J Racial Ethn Health Disparities 2018;5:1202–1214 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 18. Halpern JA, Sedrakyan A, Dinerman B, Hsu WC, Mao J, Hu JC. Indications, utilization and complications following prostate biopsy: New York State analysis. J Urol 2017;197:1020–1025 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 19. Brubaker WD, Dallas KB, Elliott CS, et al. Payer type, race/ethnicity, and the timing of surgical management of urinary stone disease. J Endourol 2019;33(2):152–158 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 20. Kirshenbaum E, Doshi C, Dornbier R, et al. Socioeconomic disparities in the acute management of stone disease in the United States. J Endourol 2019;33:167–172 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 21. Birkmeyer JD, Stukel TA, Siewers AE, Goodney PP, Wennberg DE, Lucas FL. Surgeon volume and operative mortality in the United States. N Engl J Med 2003;349:2117–2127 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 22. Begg CB, Cramer LD, Hoskins WJ, Brennan MF. Impact of hospital volume on operative mortality for major cancer surgery. JAMA 1998;280:1747–1751 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 23. Katz JN, Losina E, Barrett J, et al. Association between hospital and surgeon procedure volume and outcomes of total hip replacement in the United States Medicare population. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2001;83-A:1622–1629 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 24. Lieberman MD, Kilburn H, Lindsey M, Brennan MF. Relation of perioperative deaths to hospital volume among patients undergoing pancreatic resection for malignancy. Ann Surg 1995;222:638–645 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 25. Nuttall M, van der Meulen J, Phillips N, et al. A systematic review and critique of the literature relating hospital or surgeon volume to health outcomes for 3 urological cancer procedures. J Urol 2004;172(6 Pt 1):2145–2152 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 26. Trinh QD, Bjartell A, Freedland SJ, et al. A systematic review of the volume-outcome relationship for radical prostatectomy. Eur Urol 2013;64:786–798 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 27. de la Rosette JJ, Laguna MP, Rassweiler JJ, Conort P. Training in percutaneous nephrolithotomy—A critical review. Eur Urol 2008;54:994–1001 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
