Multicenter outcome analysis of different sheath sizes for Flexible and Navigable Suction ureteral access sheath (FANS) ureteroscopy: an EAU Endourology collaboration with the global FANS study group.
Jia-Lun Kwok, Bhaskar Somani, Kemal Sarica, Steffi Kar Kei Yuen, Marek Zawadzki, Daniele Castellani, Satyendra Persaud, Chu Ann Chai, Wissam Kamal, Tzevat Tefik, Azimdjon N Tursunkulov, Boyke Soebhali, Albert El Hajj, Raymond Ko, Khi Yung Fong, Laurian Dragos, Yiloren Tanidir, Oriol Angerri, Olivier Traxer, Vineet Gauhar
{"title":"Multicenter outcome analysis of different sheath sizes for Flexible and Navigable Suction ureteral access sheath (FANS) ureteroscopy: an EAU Endourology collaboration with the global FANS study group.","authors":"Jia-Lun Kwok, Bhaskar Somani, Kemal Sarica, Steffi Kar Kei Yuen, Marek Zawadzki, Daniele Castellani, Satyendra Persaud, Chu Ann Chai, Wissam Kamal, Tzevat Tefik, Azimdjon N Tursunkulov, Boyke Soebhali, Albert El Hajj, Raymond Ko, Khi Yung Fong, Laurian Dragos, Yiloren Tanidir, Oriol Angerri, Olivier Traxer, Vineet Gauhar","doi":"10.1007/s00240-024-01662-4","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Flexible and navigable suction ureteral access sheath (FANS) is a potential game changer in flexible ureteroscopy (FURS). The influence of sheath size on outcomes needs research. The primary aim was to analyze 30-day single stage stone free status (SFS), zero fragment rate (ZFR) and complications when using 10/12Fr sheaths vis a vis other sheath sizes. The global FANS research group published the 30-day outcomes in patients who underwent FANS and reasoned this can be a potential game changer. We included 295 patients from this anonymized dataset with division into two groups: Group 1 (Smaller sheath) - 10/12Fr FANS, and Group 2 (Larger sheath) - 11/13Fr or 12/14Fr sheaths. Stone volume was similar between both groups (median 1320 mm<sup>3</sup>, p = 0.88). Ureteroscopy and total operative time was longer in the smaller sheath group (35 vs. 32 min, p = 0.02 and 50 vs. 45 min, p = 0.001, respectively). While 30-day computed tomography SFS (100% stone free or single residual fragment ≤ 2 mm) were not significantly different (96% vs. 95%, p > 0.99), ZFR (100% stone-free) was better with smaller sheaths (68% vs. 53%, p = 0.02). There was no difference in postoperative complication rates, and no sepsis in both groups. Urologists should consider individualizing appropriate sheath size in normal adult kidneys. Sheath size did not affect complication rates, risk of perioperative injury to the pelvicalyceal system or ureteric injury, but smaller FANS sheaths had similar high SFS. The ZFR with smaller sheaths was better, but this needs to be validated. These smaller sheath outcomes need to be balanced with longer ureteroscopy time, operative time, reach to the lower pole, ease of suction and visibility during lithotripsy. Large volume studies in different types of pelvicalyceal anatomy can determine if indeed smaller FANS is the best choice in FURS.</p>","PeriodicalId":23411,"journal":{"name":"Urolithiasis","volume":"52 1","pages":"162"},"PeriodicalIF":2.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Urolithiasis","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s00240-024-01662-4","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"UROLOGY & NEPHROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Flexible and navigable suction ureteral access sheath (FANS) is a potential game changer in flexible ureteroscopy (FURS). The influence of sheath size on outcomes needs research. The primary aim was to analyze 30-day single stage stone free status (SFS), zero fragment rate (ZFR) and complications when using 10/12Fr sheaths vis a vis other sheath sizes. The global FANS research group published the 30-day outcomes in patients who underwent FANS and reasoned this can be a potential game changer. We included 295 patients from this anonymized dataset with division into two groups: Group 1 (Smaller sheath) - 10/12Fr FANS, and Group 2 (Larger sheath) - 11/13Fr or 12/14Fr sheaths. Stone volume was similar between both groups (median 1320 mm3, p = 0.88). Ureteroscopy and total operative time was longer in the smaller sheath group (35 vs. 32 min, p = 0.02 and 50 vs. 45 min, p = 0.001, respectively). While 30-day computed tomography SFS (100% stone free or single residual fragment ≤ 2 mm) were not significantly different (96% vs. 95%, p > 0.99), ZFR (100% stone-free) was better with smaller sheaths (68% vs. 53%, p = 0.02). There was no difference in postoperative complication rates, and no sepsis in both groups. Urologists should consider individualizing appropriate sheath size in normal adult kidneys. Sheath size did not affect complication rates, risk of perioperative injury to the pelvicalyceal system or ureteric injury, but smaller FANS sheaths had similar high SFS. The ZFR with smaller sheaths was better, but this needs to be validated. These smaller sheath outcomes need to be balanced with longer ureteroscopy time, operative time, reach to the lower pole, ease of suction and visibility during lithotripsy. Large volume studies in different types of pelvicalyceal anatomy can determine if indeed smaller FANS is the best choice in FURS.
期刊介绍：
Official Journal of the International Urolithiasis Society
The journal aims to publish original articles in the fields of clinical and experimental investigation only within the sphere of urolithiasis and its related areas of research. The journal covers all aspects of urolithiasis research including the diagnosis, epidemiology, pathogenesis, genetics, clinical biochemistry, open and non-invasive surgical intervention, nephrological investigation, chemistry and prophylaxis of the disorder. The Editor welcomes contributions on topics of interest to urologists, nephrologists, radiologists, clinical biochemists, epidemiologists, nutritionists, basic scientists and nurses working in that field.
Contributions may be submitted as full-length articles or as rapid communications in the form of Letters to the Editor. Articles should be original and should contain important new findings from carefully conducted studies designed to produce statistically significant data. Please note that we no longer publish articles classified as Case Reports. Editorials and review articles may be published by invitation from the Editorial Board. All submissions are peer-reviewed. Through an electronic system for the submission and review of manuscripts, the Editor and Associate Editors aim to make publication accessible as quickly as possible to a large number of readers throughout the world.
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
分享
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
扫码关注我们
