Assessment of novel ureteral occlusion device and comparison with stone cone in prevention of stone fragment migration during lithotripsy
- PMID: 15798418
- DOI: 10.1089/end.2005.19.200
Assessment of novel ureteral occlusion device and comparison with stone cone in prevention of stone fragment migration during lithotripsy
Abstract
Purpose: To present the initial ex-vivo results of a new ureteral-occlusion device (Cook Urological, Spencer, IN) for preventing the retrograde migration of particles during ureteroscopy and its comparison with the Stone Cone (Microvasive-Boston Scientific Corp., Spencer, IN).
Materials and methods: We designed an ex-vivo model using a porcine kidney with an intact ureter. Standardized plastic beads were placed in the proximal ureter. Each device was deployed proximal to the beads during ureteroscopy, and the number of beads impeded by each device was recorded.
Results: The new device was successful at preventing retrograde migration of beads > or = 1.5 mm. Furthermore, 1.0-mm beads were impeded by the center of the device, although they passed through the periphery. The Stone Cone blocked the retrograde migration of beads > or = 2.5 mm.
Conclusion: The new occlusion device was efficacious in an ex-vivo model. It appears to prevent the migration of smaller particles than are blocked by the Stone Cone.
Similar articles
-
The Dretler stone cone: a device to prevent ureteral stone migration-the initial clinical experience.J Urol. 2002 May;167(5):1985-8. J Urol. 2002. PMID: 11956424
-
Safety and efficacy of a novel ureteral occlusion device.Urology. 2012 Jul;80(1):32-7. doi: 10.1016/j.urology.2012.03.018. Epub 2012 May 18. Urology. 2012. PMID: 22608800
-
Systematic evaluation of ureteral occlusion devices: insertion, deployment, stone migration, and extraction.Urology. 2009 May;73(5):976-80. doi: 10.1016/j.urology.2008.12.048. Urology. 2009. PMID: 19394493
-
Antiretropulsion devices.Curr Opin Urol. 2014 Mar;24(2):173-8. doi: 10.1097/MOU.0000000000000032. Curr Opin Urol. 2014. PMID: 24418744 Review.
-
NTrap in prevention of stone migration during ureteroscopic lithotripsy for proximal ureteral stones: a meta-analysis.J Endourol. 2012 Feb;26(2):130-4. doi: 10.1089/end.2011.0392. J Endourol. 2012. PMID: 22092448 Review.
Cited by
-
Safety and efficacy of using the stone cone and an entrapment and extraction device in ureteroscopic lithotripsy for ureteric stones.Arab J Urol. 2015 Jun;13(2):75-9. doi: 10.1016/j.aju.2015.02.005. Epub 2015 Mar 9. Arab J Urol. 2015. PMID: 26413324 Free PMC article.
-
Prevention of stone retropulsion during ureteroscopy: Limitations in resources invites revival of old techniques.Arab J Urol. 2020 Aug 13;18(4):252-256. doi: 10.1080/2090598X.2020.1805966. Arab J Urol. 2020. PMID: 33312737 Free PMC article.
-
Update on ureteroscopy instrumentation.Indian J Urol. 2010 Jul;26(3):370-3. doi: 10.4103/0970-1591.70572. Indian J Urol. 2010. PMID: 21116357 Free PMC article.
-
A comparison of Stone Cone versus lidocaine jelly in the prevention of ureteral stone migration during ureteroscopic lithotripsy.Ther Adv Urol. 2011 Oct;3(5):203-10. doi: 10.1177/1756287211419551. Ther Adv Urol. 2011. PMID: 22046198 Free PMC article.
-
Efficacy and safety of the Accordion stone-trapping device: in vitro results from an artificial ureterolithotripsy model.Urol Res. 2010 Feb;38(1):41-6. doi: 10.1007/s00240-009-0232-2. Epub 2009 Nov 27. Urol Res. 2010. PMID: 19943042
MeSH terms
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources