Skip to main content
Hauptrubriken
CME Facharzt-Training Webinare Zeitschriften Bücher e.Medpedia Podcast
Service
Jobbörse Info & Hilfe
Fachgebiete
Anästhesiologie Allgemeinmedizin Arbeitsmedizin Augenheilkunde Chirurgie Dermatologie Gynäkologie und Geburtshilfe HNO Innere Medizin Kardiologie Neurologie Onkologie und Hämatologie Orthopädie und Unfallchirurgie Pädiatrie Pathologie Psychiatrie Radiologie Rechtsmedizin Urologie Zahnmedizin
Themen
Typ-2-Diabetes und Adipositas Klimawandel und Gesundheit Neues aus dem Markt Praxis und Beruf Seltene Erkrankungen GOÄ & EBM Panorama
Sammlungen
Kasuistiken Algorithmen & Infografiken Blickdiagnosen Arthropedia FlapFinder (für Dermatochirurgen) Videos Kongressberichterstattung Medizin für Apothekerinnen und Apotheker Für Ärztinnen und Ärzte in Weiterbildung Für Medizinstudierende Patientenratgeber
Erweiterte Suche
Anmelden
nach oben
World Journal of Urology
Erschienen in:

18.03.2021 | Original Article

Efficiency of retrograde intrarenal surgery in lower pole stones: disposable flexible ureterorenoscope or reusable flexible ureterorenoscope?

verfasst von: Yunus Emre Göger, Mehmet Serkan Özkent, Muzaffer Tansel Kılınç, Hakan Hakkı Taşkapu, Esra Göger, Arif Aydın, Mehmet Giray Sönmez, Giray Karalezli

Erschienen in: World Journal of Urology | Ausgabe 9/2021

Einloggen, um Zugang zu erhalten

Abstract

Purpose

The primary aim of this study to comparison of reusable and disposable flexible ureterorenoscope (fURS) efficiency in lower pole renal stone disease management. In addition, the secondary goal of this study was to evaluate the factors affecting stone-free rates (SFR) in lower pole stones.

Materials and methods

A prospective case–control study utilizing data from 122 consecutive ureteroscopic cases. The patients were divided into two groups according to the ureterorenoscope employed in the surgical intervention as disposable fURS (Group1, n:52) and reusable fURS (Group 2, n:70). Demographic characteristics, stone size, infundibulopelvic angle (IPA), SFR, hospitalization time, intraoperative complication rate (CR), operative time, preoperative or postoperative JJ stenting, and postoperative CR were analyzed.

Results

There was no statistical difference between the demographic and renal stone-related data between the groups. Likewise, no difference is observed in term of intraoperative and postoperative outcomes such as fluoroscopy time, CR, and hospitalization time between the groups. Although SFR was higher in the disposable fURS group, there was no difference statistically. However, the operative time was longer in reusable fURS Group (47.02 ± 9.91 min in Group 1, and it was 57.97 ± 14.28 in Group 2) (p: 0.001). The multivariate regression analysis result to evaluate the factors of effect to operative time; the use of disposable fURS was associated with a 10.95-min decrease in procedure duration (p < 0.001).

Conclusions

Disposable fURS and reusable fURS have similar clinical efficiency and complication rates in the treatment of lower calyceal stones with RIRS. Nevertheless, disposable fURS is a useful treatment option for increased stone volume due to the advantages such as shorter operative time.
Anhänge
Nur mit Berechtigung zugänglich
Literatur
1.
Türk C, Petřík A, Sarica K, Seitz C, Skolarikos A, Straub M et al (2016) EAU guidelines on interventional treatment for urolithiasis. EurUrol 69(3):475–482
2.
Doizi S, Traxer O (2018) Flexible ureteroscopy: technique, tips and tricks. Urolithiasis 46(1):47–58CrossRef
3.
Elbahnasy AM, Clayman RV, Shalhav AL, Hoenig DM, Chandhoke P, Lingeman JE et al (1998) Lower-pole caliceal stone clearance after shockwave lithotripsy, percutaneous nephrolithotomy, and flexible ureteroscopy: impact of radiographic spatial anatomy. J Endourol 12(2):113–119CrossRef
4.
Fan J, Zhang T, Zhu W, Gurioli A, Ketegwe IR, Zeng G (2019) The role of super-mini percutaneous nephrolithotomy (SMP) in the treatment of symptomatic lower pole renal stones (LPSs) after the failure of shockwave lithotripsy (SWL) or retrograde intrarenal surgery (RIRS). Urolithiasis 47(3):297–301CrossRef
5.
Karim SS, Hanna L, Geraghty R, Somani BK (2019) Role of pelvicalyceal anatomy in the outcomes of retrograde intrarenal surgery (RIRS) for lower pole stones: outcomes with a systematic review of literature. Urolithiasis 48(3):263–270
6.
Salvadó JA, Cabello JM, Moreno S, Cabello R, Olivares R, Velasco A (2019) Endoscopic treatment of lower pole stones: is a disposable ureteroscope preferable? Results of a prospective case-control study. Cent Eur J Urol 72(3):280
7.
Davis N, Quinlan M, Browne C, Bhatt N, Manecksha RP, D’Arcy F et al (2018) Single-use flexible ureteropyeloscopy: a systematic review. World J Urol 36(4):529–536CrossRef
8.
Mager R, Kurosch M, Höfner T, Frees S, Haferkamp A, Neisius A (2018) Clinical outcomes and costs of reusable and single-use flexible ureterorenoscopes: a prospective cohort study. Urolithiasis 46(6):587–593CrossRef
9.
Ozimek T, Schneider MH, Hupe MC, Wiessmeyer JR, Cordes J, Chlosta PL et al (2017) Retrospective cost analysis of a single-center reusable flexible ureterorenoscopy program: a comparative cost simulation of disposable fURS as an alternative. J Endourol 31(12):1226–1230CrossRef
10.
Doizi S, Kamphuis G, Giusti G, Andreassen KH, Knoll T, Osther PJ et al (2017) First clinical evaluation of a new single-use flexible ureteroscope (LithoVueTM): a European prospective multicentric feasibility study. World J Urol 35(5):809–818CrossRef
11.
Dindo D, Demartines N, Clavien P-A (2004) Classification of surgical complications: a new proposal with evaluation in a cohort of 6336 patients and results of a survey. Ann Surg 240(2):205CrossRef
12.
Donaldson JF, Lardas M, Scrimgeour D, Stewart F, MacLennan S, Lam TB et al (2015) Systematic review and meta-analysis of the clinical effectiveness of shock wave lithotripsy, retrograde intrarenal surgery, and percutaneous nephrolithotomy for lower-pole renal stones. EurUrol 67(4):612–616
13.
Junbo L, Yugen L, Guo J, Jing H, Ruichao Y, Tao W (2019) Retrograde intrarenal surgery vs. percutaneous nephrolithotomy vs. extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy for lower pole renal stones 10–20 mm: a meta-analysis and systematic review. Urol J. 16(2):97–106PubMed
14.
Singh BP, Prakash J, Sankhwar SN, Dhakad U, Sankhwar PL, Goel A et al (2014) Retrograde intrarenal surgery vs extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy for intermediate size inferior pole calculi: a prospective assessment of objective and subjective outcomes. Urology 83(5):1016–1022CrossRef
15.
Jessen JP, Honeck P, Knoll T, Wendt-Nordahl G (2014) Flexible ureterorenoscopy for lower pole stones: influence of the collecting system’s anatomy. J Endourol 28(2):146–151CrossRef
16.
Knudsen B, Miyaoka R, Shah K, Holden T, Turk TM, Pedro RN et al (2010) Durability of the next-generation flexible fiberopticureteroscopes: a randomized prospective multi-institutional clinical trial. Urology 75(3):534–538CrossRef
17.
Somani BK, Al-Qahtani SM, de Medina SDG, Traxer O (2013) Outcomes of flexible ureterorenoscopy and laser fragmentation for renal stones: comparison between digital and conventional ureteroscope. Urology 82(5):1017–1019CrossRef
18.
Tosoian JJ, Ludwig W, Sopko N, Mullins JK, Matlaga BR (2015) The effect of repair costs on the profitability of a ureteroscopy program. J Endourol 29(4):406–409CrossRef
19.
Legemate JD, Kamphuis GM, Freund JE, Baard J, Zanetti SP, Catellani M et al (2019) Durability of flexible ureteroscopes: a prospective evaluation of longevity, the factors that affect it, and damage mechanisms. Euro Urol focus 5(6):1105–1111CrossRef
20.
Usawachintachit M, Isaacson DS, Taguchi K, Tzou DT, Hsi RS, Sherer BA et al (2017) A prospective case–control study comparing LithoVue, a single-use, flexible disposable ureteroscope, with flexible, reusable fiber-optic ureteroscopes. J Endourol 31(5):468–475CrossRef
21.
Martin CJ, McAdams SB, Abdul-Muhsin H, Lim VM, Nunez-Nateras R, Tyson MD et al (2017) The economic implications of a reusable flexible digital ureteroscope: a cost-benefit analysis. J Urol 197(3):730–735CrossRef
22.
Salvadó JA, Olivares R, Cabello JM, Cabello R, Moreno S, Pfeifer J et al (2018) Retrograde intrarenal surgery using the single–use flexible ureteroscopeUscope 3022 (PusenTM): evaluation of clinical results. Cent Eur J Urol 71(2):202
23.
Deininger S, Haberstock L, Kruck S, Neumann E, da Costa IA, Todenhöfer T et al (2018) Single-use versus reusable ureterorenoscopes for retrograde intrarenal surgery (RIRS): systematic comparative analysis of physical and optical properties in three different devices. World J Urol 36(12):2059–2063CrossRef
24.
Traxer O, Thomas A (2013) Prospective evaluation and classification of ureteral wall injuries resulting from insertion of a ureteral access sheath during retrograde intrarenal surgery. J Urol 189(2):580–584CrossRef
25.
Donaldson JF, Ruhayel Y, Skolarikos A, MacLennan S, Yuan Y, Shepherd R et al (2019) Treatment of bladder stones in adults and children: a systematic review and meta-analysis on behalf of the European Association of Urology Urolithiasis Guideline Panel. EurUrol 76(3):352–367
26.
Miernik A, Wilhelm K, Ardelt PU, Adams F, Kuehhas FE, Schoenthaler M (2012) Standardized flexible ureteroscopic technique to improve stone-free rates. Urology 80(6):1198–1202CrossRef
27.
Lildal SK, Sørensen FB, Andreassen KH, Christiansen FE, Jung H, Pedersen MR et al (2017) Histopathological correlations to ureteral lesions visualized during ureteroscopy. World J Urol 35(10):1489–1496CrossRef
28.
De Coninck V, Keller EX, Rodríguez-Monsalve M, Audouin M, Doizi S, Traxer O (2018) Systematic review of ureteral access sheaths: facts and myths. BJU Int 122(6):959–969CrossRef
29.
Carlos EC, Li J, Young BJ, Radvak D, Wollin DA, Winship BB et al (2019) Let’s get to the point: comparing insertion characteristics and scope damage of flat-tip and ball-tip holmium laser fibers. J Endourol 33(1):22–26CrossRef
30.
Enikeev D, Shariat SF, Taratkin M, Glybochko P (2020) The changing role of lasers in urologic surgery. CurrOpinUrol 30(1):24–29
31.
Dymov A, Rapoport L, Enikeev D, Tsarichenko D, Sorokin N, Proskura A et al (2019) Prospective clinical study on superpulse thulium fiber laser: Initial analysis of optimal laser settings. EurUrolSuppl 18(1):e500
32.
Aldoukhi AH, Black KM, Hall TL, Roberts WW, Ghani KR (2020) Frequency threshold for ablation during holmium laser lithotripsy: how high can you go? J Endourol 34(10):1075–1081
Metadaten
Titel
Efficiency of retrograde intrarenal surgery in lower pole stones: disposable flexible ureterorenoscope or reusable flexible ureterorenoscope?
verfasst von
Yunus Emre Göger
Mehmet Serkan Özkent
Muzaffer Tansel Kılınç
Hakan Hakkı Taşkapu
Esra Göger
Arif Aydın
Mehmet Giray Sönmez
Giray Karalezli
Publikationsdatum
18.03.2021
Verlag
Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Erschienen in
World Journal of Urology / Ausgabe 9/2021
Print ISSN: 0724-4983
Elektronische ISSN: 1433-8726
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-021-03656-y

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 9/2021

Does non-visible haematuria require urgent assessment? A retrospective cohort study from a university teaching hospital

  • Open Access
  • Original Article

A qualitative framework of non-selection factors for cytoreductive nephrectomy

  • Original Article

Outcome after resection of occult and non-occult lymph node metastases at the time of nephrectomy

  • Original Article

Histogram of kidney stones on non-contrast computed tomography to predict successful stone dusting during retrograde intrarenal surgery

  • Original Article

The prognostic significance of lactate dehydrogenase levels in seminoma patients with advanced disease: an analysis by the Global Germ Cell Tumor Collaborative Group (G3)

  • Open Access
  • Original Article

A novel prediction model for the completion of six cycles of radium-223 treatment and survival in patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer

  • Open Access
  • Original Article

Neu im Fachgebiet Urologie

Hohe Atrophierate nach Hodentorsion im Kindesalter

Auf längere Sicht ist die Atrophierate nach einer Hodentorsion pädiatrischer Patienten erschreckend hoch. Das hat eine Studie mit jahrelanger Nachbeobachtung ergeben. Entscheidend ist die Zeit, die bis zur Detorsion verstreicht.

Studie zur HIFU bei Prostatakrebs lässt viele Fragen offen

Führt eine HIFU-Ablation beim Prostatakarzinom im Vergleich mit einer radikalen Prostatektomie zu ähnlichen onkologischen, aber besseren funktionalen Ergebnissen? Interimsdaten der französischen HIFI-Studie sind uneindeutig. In einem Kommentar zur Studie werden zumindest drei allgemeine Erkenntnisse herausgearbeitet.

"Die Erektionsstörung ist keine isolierte Erkrankung"

Werden Erektionsstörungen gut behandelt (und das ist möglich), steigt die Lebensqualität enorm. Tipps für eine gute Kommunikation mit den Patienten gibt Androloge Dr. med. Jann-Frederik Cremers in dieser Folge. Welche Fragen sollten gestellt und an welche Ursachen gedacht werden? Und was ist zu tun, wenn PDE-5-Hemmer und Lebensstilveränderungen nicht ausreichend wirken?

Adjuvanter PD-L1-Hemmer verhindert Rezidive bei Hochrisiko-Urothelkarzinom

Sind Menschen mit muskelinvasivem Urothelkarzinom für die neoadjuvante platinbasierte Therapie nicht geeignet oder sprechen sie darauf nicht gut an, ist Pembrolizumab eine adjuvante Alternative: Die krankheitsfreie Lebenszeit wird dadurch mehr als verdoppelt.

Update Urologie

Bestellen Sie unseren Fach-Newsletter und bleiben Sie gut informiert.

Newsletter bestellen
Bildnachweise