Perceptions and Practice Patterns of Urologists Relating to Intrarenal Pressure During Ureteroscopy: Findings from a Global Cross-Sectional Analysis

Objectives: To explore beliefs and practice patterns of urologists regarding intrarenal pressure (IRP) during ureteroscopy (URS). Methods: A customized questionnaire was designed in a 4-step iterative process incorporating a systematic review of the literature and critical analysis of topics/questions by six endourologists. The 19-item questionnaire interrogated perceptions, practice patterns, and key areas of uncertainty regarding ureteroscopic IRP, and was disseminated via urologic societies, networks, and social media to the international urologic community. Consultants/attendings and trainees currently practicing urology were eligible to respond. Quantitative responses were compiled and analyzed using descriptive statistics and chi-square test, with subgroup analysis by procedure volume. Results: Responses were received from 522 urologists, practicing in six continents. The individual question response rate was >97%. Most (83.9%, 437/515) respondents were practicing at a consultant/attending level. An endourology fellowship incorporating stone management had been completed by 59.2% (307/519). The vast majority of respondents (85.4%, 446/520) scored the perceived clinical significance of IRP during URS ‡7/10 on a Likert scale. Concern was uniformly reported, with no difference between respondents with and without a high annual case volume (p = 0.16). Potential adverse outcomes respondents associated with elevated ureteroscopic IRP were urosepsis (96.2%, 501/520), collecting system rupture (80.8%, 421/520), postoperative pain (67%, 349/520), bleeding (63.72%, 332/520), and long-term renal damage (26.1%, 136/520). Almost all participants (96.2%, 501/520) used measures aiming to reduce IRP during URS. Regarding the perceived maximum acceptable threshold for mean IRP during URS, 30 mm Hg (40 cm H₂O) was most frequently selected [23.2% (119/463)], with most participants (78.2%, 341/463) choosing a value £40 mm Hg. Conclusions: This is the first large-scale analysis of urologists’ perceptions of ureteroscopic IRP. It identifies high levels of concern among the global urologic community, with almost unanimous agreement that elevated IRP is associated with adverse clinical outcomes. Equipoise remains regarding appropriate IRP limits intraoperatively and the most appropriate technical strategies to ensure adherence to these.