Efficiency of retrograde intrarenal surgery in lower pole stones: disposable flexible ureterorenoscope or reusable flexible ureterorenoscope?
- PMID: 33738574
- DOI: 10.1007/s00345-021-03656-y
Efficiency of retrograde intrarenal surgery in lower pole stones: disposable flexible ureterorenoscope or reusable flexible ureterorenoscope?
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.
Keywords: Disposable flexible ureterorenoscope; Retrograde intrarenal surgery; Reusable flexible ureterorenoscope; Stone disease; Urolithiasis.
© 2021. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature.
Comment in
-
Disposable or reusable flexible ureterorenoscopy for renal calculi: cost remains as the deciding factor.World J Urol. 2022 May;40(5):1267-1268. doi: 10.1007/s00345-021-03867-3. Epub 2021 Oct 24. World J Urol. 2022. PMID: 34689212 No abstract available.
Similar articles
-
Clinical comparative study of single-use and reusable digital flexible ureteroscopy for the treatment of lower pole stones: a retrospective case-controlled study.BMC Urol. 2024 Jul 18;24(1):149. doi: 10.1186/s12894-024-01541-5. BMC Urol. 2024. PMID: 39026274 Free PMC article.
-
Comparison of Surgical Outcomes between Single-Use and Reusable Flexible Ureteroscopes for Renal Stone Management: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Medicina (Kaunas). 2022 Oct 3;58(10):1388. doi: 10.3390/medicina58101388. Medicina (Kaunas). 2022. PMID: 36295549 Free PMC article.
-
Retrospective Cost Analysis of a Single-Center Reusable Flexible Ureterorenoscopy Program: A Comparative Cost Simulation of Disposable fURS as an Alternative.J Endourol. 2017 Dec;31(12):1226-1230. doi: 10.1089/end.2017.0427. Epub 2017 Nov 17. J Endourol. 2017. PMID: 29073769
-
Single-use versus reusable flexible ureterorenoscopes with FANS: a multicenter propensity-matched analysis of outcomes in a large series from the EAU-Endourology Section and FANS Collaborative Group.World J Urol. 2025 Jun 26;43(1):399. doi: 10.1007/s00345-025-05769-0. World J Urol. 2025. PMID: 40569462
-
Flexible ureteroscopy for lower pole calculus: is it still a challenge?World J Urol. 2023 Nov;41(11):3345-3353. doi: 10.1007/s00345-023-04606-6. Epub 2023 Sep 20. World J Urol. 2023. PMID: 37728745 Review.
Cited by
-
Retrospective study of single-use digital flexible ureteroscopic lithotripsy versus miniaturized percutaneous nephrolithotomy for 1.5-2.5cm lower pole renal stones.Int Urol Nephrol. 2024 Jan;56(1):55-62. doi: 10.1007/s11255-023-03771-2. Epub 2023 Sep 1. Int Urol Nephrol. 2024. PMID: 37656387
-
Novel scoring system for predicting stone-free rate after flexible ureteroscopy lithotripsy.Medicine (Baltimore). 2024 Nov 1;103(44):e40390. doi: 10.1097/MD.0000000000040390. Medicine (Baltimore). 2024. PMID: 39496039 Free PMC article.
-
Clinical comparative study of single-use and reusable digital flexible ureteroscopy for the treatment of lower pole stones: a retrospective case-controlled study.BMC Urol. 2024 Jul 18;24(1):149. doi: 10.1186/s12894-024-01541-5. BMC Urol. 2024. PMID: 39026274 Free PMC article.
-
Ureterolithiasis in Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV) Patients Treated with Single-Use Ureteroscope: A Case Report.Am J Case Rep. 2022 Dec 26;23:e938608. doi: 10.12659/AJCR.938608. Am J Case Rep. 2022. PMID: 36567520 Free PMC article.
-
Retrograde intrarenal surgery versus percutaneous nephrolithotomy for treatment of renal pelvic stone more than 2 centimeters: a prospective randomized controlled trial.Urolithiasis. 2022 Feb;50(1):113-117. doi: 10.1007/s00240-021-01289-9. Epub 2021 Nov 22. Urolithiasis. 2022. PMID: 34807274 Clinical Trial.
References
-
- 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
-
- Doizi S, Traxer O (2018) Flexible ureteroscopy: technique, tips and tricks. Urolithiasis 46(1):47–58 - DOI
-
- 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):113–119 - DOI
-
- 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):297–301 - DOI
-
- 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
Publication types
MeSH terms
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Other Literature Sources