| Published Version Download ( PDF | 1MB) Repository staff only |
Outpatient versus Inpatient Ureterorenoscopy: A Retrospective Dual-Center Analysis
Article
Müller, Maximilian Reinhard, Schnabel, Marco Julius
, Oppolzer, Immanuel Augustin
, Goßler, Christopher
, Burger, Maximilian and Thalgott, Mark
(2025)
Outpatient versus Inpatient Ureterorenoscopy: A Retrospective Dual-Center Analysis.
Urologia Internationalis, pp. 1-7.
DOI to cite this document: 10.5283/epub.78676
Abstract
Introduction: Germany’s 2025 hospital reform promotes outpatient care, yet ureterorenoscopy (URS) remains predominantly inpatient. This study compares outcomes of outpatient versus inpatient URS. Methods: This retrospective, dual-center study compared patients who underwent URS in either an inpatient (Regensburg) or outpatient (Landshut) setting. Surgical parameters, stone-free status, and ...
Introduction: Germany’s 2025 hospital reform promotes outpatient care, yet ureterorenoscopy (URS) remains predominantly inpatient. This study compares outcomes of outpatient versus inpatient URS. Methods: This retrospective, dual-center study compared patients who underwent URS in either an inpatient (Regensburg) or outpatient (Landshut) setting. Surgical parameters, stone-free status, and postoperative complications (classified by Clavien-Dindo) were analyzed. Risk factors for complications were evaluated using chi-square testing. Results: Baseline characteristics were comparable between groups. Complication rates – particularly Clavien-Dindo grade II – were higher in the outpatient cohort. Residual stone rates, surgical time, and postoperative fever did not differ significantly. Residual stones (p < 0.001) and surgical time above the median (p = 0.003) were identified as significant risk factors for postoperative complications. Conclusion: Outpatient URS is a safe and effective alternative to inpatient treatment, with comparable stone-free rates, operative times, and postoperative fever incidence. The higher rate of minor complications in the outpatient setting likely reflects a more precautionary antibiotic management strategy rather than increased clinical severity. These findings support broader implementation of outpatient URS, while emphasizing the need for antibiotic stewardship and further prospective, multicenter investigations.
Alternative links to fulltext
Involved Institutions
Details
| Item type | Article | ||||
| Journal or Publication Title | Urologia Internationalis | ||||
| Publisher | Karger | ||||
| Open Access Type | No Open Access | ||||
| Page Range | pp. 1-7 | ||||
| Date | 11 December 2025 | ||||
| Date of publication | 12 Feb 2026 10:00 | ||||
| Institutions | Medicine > Lehrstuhl für Urologie | ||||
| Identification Number |
| ||||
| Keywords | Urolithiasis, Ureteronoscopy, Outpatient urology, Outpatient care, Surgical outcomes | ||||
| Dewey Decimal Classification | 600 Technology > 610 Medical sciences Medicine | ||||
| Status | Published | ||||
| Refereed | Yes, this version has been refereed | ||||
| Created at the University of Regensburg | Yes | ||||
| Item ID | 78676 |
Download Statistics
Download Statistics