Ureteral access sheaths in RIRS: a retrospective, comparative, single-center study
- PMID: 39297550
- DOI: 10.1515/jbcpp-2024-0142
Ureteral access sheaths in RIRS: a retrospective, comparative, single-center study
Abstract
Objectives: To evaluate the use of ureteral access sheaths (UAS) in reducing operative time and complications, as well as improving stone-free rates (SFR), while assessing their overall safety and efficiency.
Methods: Data regarding 234 patients who underwent retrograde intrarenal surgery (RIRS) for stones up to 3 cm between January 2017 and March 2020 were retrospectively analyzed. About 52.5 % of procedures were performed utilizing a UAS. Differences in operative time, fluoroscopy time, stone-free rate, and complications were analyzed between procedures with and without UAS and stratified, according to stone burden size, into three groups (Group A: 0.5-1 cm; Group B: 1-2 cm; Group C: 2-3 cm).
Results: Operative time, fluoroscopy time, and residual fragments size were lower in RIRS without UAS, respectively, 54.27 ± 24.02 vs. 62.23 ± 22.66 min (p=0.010), 2.72 ± 0.89 vs. 4.44 ± 1.67 min (p<0.0001), and 3.85 ± 0.813 vs. 4.60 ± 0.83 mm (p=0.011). Considering stone burden, operative time was lower in RIRS without UAS for Group A (36.40 ± 8.555 vs. 46.05 ± 6.332 min) (p<0.0001) while higher for Group B (60.39 ± 18.785 vs. 50.14 ± 5.812 min) (p=0.002). Similarly, fluoroscopy time was lower in RIRS without UAS in every group, respectively, 2.11 ± 0.34 vs. 2.74 ± 0.57 min (p<0.0001), 2.94 ± 0.51 vs. 4.72 ± 0.37 min (p<0.0001), and 3.78 ± 1.26 vs. 6.79 ± 1.17 min (p<0.0001). Only Group C had a statistically significant difference in residual fragment size without UAS (3.89 ± 0.782 vs. 4.75 ± 0.886 mm) (p=0.050).
Conclusions: UAS should be carefully evaluated considering the increased fluoroscopy time and the differences in operative time related to different stone burdens.
Keywords: RIRS; stone-free rate; ureteral access sheath.
© 2024 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston.
References
-
- Barone, B, Crocetto, F, Vitale, R, Di Domenico, D, Caputo, V, Romano, F, et al.. Retrograde intra renal surgery versus percutaneous nephrolithotomy for renal stones >2 cm. A systematic review and meta-analysis. Minerva Urol Nefrol 2020;72:441–50. https://doi.org/10.23736/s0393-2249.20.03721-2 . - DOI
-
- Zhang, W, Zhou, T, Wu, T, Gao, X, Peng, Y, Xu, C, et al.. Retrograde intrarenal surgery versus percutaneous nephrolithotomy versus extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy for treatment of lower Pole renal stones: a meta-analysis and systematic review. J Endourol 2015;29:745–59. https://doi.org/10.1089/end.2014.0799 . - DOI
-
- Zheng, C, Xiong, B, Wang, H, Luo, J, Zhang, C, Wei, W, et al.. Retrograde intrarenal surgery versus percutaneous nephrolithotomy for treatment of renal stones >2 cm: a meta-analysis. Urol Int 2014;93:417–24. https://doi.org/10.1159/000363509 . - DOI
-
- Inoue, T, Okada, S, Hamamoto, S, Fujisawa, M. Retrograde intrarenal surgery: past, present, and future. Investig Clin Urol 2021;62:121–35. https://doi.org/10.4111/icu.20200526 . - DOI
-
- Tzelves, L, Türk, C, Skolarikos, A. European association of urology urolithiasis guidelines: where are we going? Eur Urol Focus 2021;7:34–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.euf.2020.09.011 . - DOI
Publication types
MeSH terms
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources