EN
Contribution of Ureteral Access Sheath Use to The Efficacy of Semirigid Ureterorenoscopy in Upper Ureteral Stones Smaller Than 2 Cm: Experiences of A Single Center
Abstract
Objective: The aim of our paper is to answer the question that during the ureteroscopy procedure if ureteral access sheath could facilitate operation, could decrease complication rates,operation time,requirement of additional surgery.
Method: The patients were randomly divided into two groups. Group 1 contained 44 patients for whom a UAS was not used and Group 2 consisted of 70 patients for whom a UAS was used during the URS procedure. The operation was continued using the semirigid ureteroscope within the UAS.
Results: There were no statistically significant differences between the two groups in terms of the mean age, BMI, ASA score, mean stone density, previous unsuccessful interventions, history of stone disease, mean grade of hydronephrosis in renal pelvis and mean stone size. the mean operation time was 41 minutes for Group 1 and 30 minutes for Group 2, with a statistically significant difference (p < 0.001), consistent with the literature. Similarly, the difference in the mean fluoroscopy time was statistically significant, being determined as six minutes for Group 1 and three minutes for Group 2 (p < 0.001).
Conclusions: Use of UAS was statistically significantly superior in terms of many parameters, such as increased stone-free rate, shorter operation time, and reduced requirement of additional surgery. Furthermore, the complication rates did not significantly differ between the UAS and non-UAS groups. We also consider that the advantages of a higher stone-free rate and reduced requirement of secondary interventions make the cost of UAS acceptable.
Method: The patients were randomly divided into two groups. Group 1 contained 44 patients for whom a UAS was not used and Group 2 consisted of 70 patients for whom a UAS was used during the URS procedure. The operation was continued using the semirigid ureteroscope within the UAS.
Results: There were no statistically significant differences between the two groups in terms of the mean age, BMI, ASA score, mean stone density, previous unsuccessful interventions, history of stone disease, mean grade of hydronephrosis in renal pelvis and mean stone size. the mean operation time was 41 minutes for Group 1 and 30 minutes for Group 2, with a statistically significant difference (p < 0.001), consistent with the literature. Similarly, the difference in the mean fluoroscopy time was statistically significant, being determined as six minutes for Group 1 and three minutes for Group 2 (p < 0.001).
Conclusions: Use of UAS was statistically significantly superior in terms of many parameters, such as increased stone-free rate, shorter operation time, and reduced requirement of additional surgery. Furthermore, the complication rates did not significantly differ between the UAS and non-UAS groups. We also consider that the advantages of a higher stone-free rate and reduced requirement of secondary interventions make the cost of UAS acceptable.
Keywords
References
- 1. Preminger GM, Tiselius HG, Assimos DG, Alken P, Buck AC, Gallucci M., et al; American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc; European Association of Urology. 2007 Guideline for the management of ureteral calculi. Eur Urol 2007;52:1610–1631.
- 2. Bader MJ, Eisner B, Porpiglia F, Preminger GM, Tiselius HG.. Contemporary management of ureteral stones. Eur Urol 2012;61:764-72. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2012.01.009
- 3. Gnanapragasam VJ, Ramsden PD, Murthy LS, Thomas DJ. Primary in situ extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy in the management of ureteric calculi: Results with a third-generation lithotripter. Br J Urol 1999;84:770–774.
- 4. Stewart GD, Bariol SV, Moussa SA, Smith G, Tolley DA. Matched pair analysis of ureteroscopy vs. shock wave lithotripsy for the treatment of upper ureteric calculi. Int J Clin Pract 2007; 61:784–788
- 5. Lam JS, Greene TD, Gupta M. Treatment of proximal ureteral calculi: Holmium:YAG laser ureterolithotripsy versus extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy. J Urol 2002;167:1972– 1976.
- 6. Fong YK, Ho SH, Peh OH, Ng FC, Lim PH, Quek PL et al. Extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy and intracorporeal lithotripsy for proximal ureteral calculi—a comparative assessment of efficacy and safety. Ann Acad Med Singapore 2004;33:80–83.
- 7. Wu CF, Shee JJ, Lin WY, Lin CL, Chen CS.. Comparison between extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy and semirigid ureterorenoscope with holmium:YAG laser lithotripsy for treating large proximal ureteral stones. J Urol 2004;172: 1899–1902.
- 8. Rehman J, Monga M, Landman J, Lee DI, Felfela T, Conradie MC. Characterization of intrapelvic pressure during ureteropyeloscopy with ureteral access sheaths. Urology 2003;61:713–718.
Details
Primary Language
English
Subjects
Health Care Administration
Journal Section
Research Article
Authors
Ahmet Cinislioğlu
0000-0002-1037-815X
Türkiye
Publication Date
March 30, 2022
Submission Date
May 29, 2021
Acceptance Date
February 23, 2022
Published in Issue
Year 1970 Volume: 44 Number: 1