Impact of ureteric access sheath use during flexible ureteroscopy: A comparative study on efficacy and safety

M.M. Abdelfatah Zaza , A. Farouk Salim , T.A. El-Mageed Salem , A. Mohammed Ezzat , M. Hassan Ali
{"title":"Impact of ureteric access sheath use during flexible ureteroscopy: A comparative study on efficacy and safety","authors":"M.M. Abdelfatah Zaza ,&nbsp;A. Farouk Salim ,&nbsp;T.A. El-Mageed Salem ,&nbsp;A. Mohammed Ezzat ,&nbsp;M. Hassan Ali","doi":"10.1016/j.acuroe.2023.10.005","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Objectives</h3><p>This study evaluates the impact of using an access sheath (AS) during flexible ureteroscopy<span> (fURS) for urolithiasis treatment, focusing on outcomes such as stone-free rate, operation time, and complications.</span></p></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><p>This prospective, randomized study was carried out at Badr Hospital, Helwan University, and Ain Shams University hospitals from August 2021 to August 2022. Patients were systematically randomized into two groups (fURS with AS: 33 patients and without AS: 31 patients) and underwent preoperative and postoperative assessments, including lab tests and imaging. Possible procedure-associated risks, such as failed stone access, pain, bleeding, and sepsis, were monitored.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>The two groups were found to be comparable in terms of demographic characteristics or preoperative stone findings (<em>p</em> &gt; 0.05 for all). However, operation duration was shorter in the No Sheath group (79.4 ± 15.3 min vs. 90.4 ± 16.7 min in the Sheath group, <em>p</em><span> = 0.008). Intraoperative complication rates, including failed access, operation termination, ureteric injury, and bleeding, were comparable in both groups (</span><em>p</em> &gt; 0.05). Postoperative stone-free rates (78.8% vs. 71.0%, <em>p</em> = 0.305) and mean residual stone size (2.7 ± 3.5 mm vs. 3.1 ± 3.1 mm, <em>p</em> = 0.687) showed no significant differences.</p></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><p>The present study suggests that fURS without an access sheath may offer an efficient and equally effective option for managing upper ureteric and renal stones. However, more studies with larger sample sizes and longer follow-up periods are required to validate these findings and to establish more precise indications for this approach.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":94291,"journal":{"name":"Actas urologicas espanolas","volume":"48 3","pages":"Pages 204-209"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Actas urologicas espanolas","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2173578623001166","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objectives

This study evaluates the impact of using an access sheath (AS) during flexible ureteroscopy (fURS) for urolithiasis treatment, focusing on outcomes such as stone-free rate, operation time, and complications.

Methods

This prospective, randomized study was carried out at Badr Hospital, Helwan University, and Ain Shams University hospitals from August 2021 to August 2022. Patients were systematically randomized into two groups (fURS with AS: 33 patients and without AS: 31 patients) and underwent preoperative and postoperative assessments, including lab tests and imaging. Possible procedure-associated risks, such as failed stone access, pain, bleeding, and sepsis, were monitored.

Results

The two groups were found to be comparable in terms of demographic characteristics or preoperative stone findings (p > 0.05 for all). However, operation duration was shorter in the No Sheath group (79.4 ± 15.3 min vs. 90.4 ± 16.7 min in the Sheath group, p = 0.008). Intraoperative complication rates, including failed access, operation termination, ureteric injury, and bleeding, were comparable in both groups (p > 0.05). Postoperative stone-free rates (78.8% vs. 71.0%, p = 0.305) and mean residual stone size (2.7 ± 3.5 mm vs. 3.1 ± 3.1 mm, p = 0.687) showed no significant differences.

Conclusions

The present study suggests that fURS without an access sheath may offer an efficient and equally effective option for managing upper ureteric and renal stones. However, more studies with larger sample sizes and longer follow-up periods are required to validate these findings and to establish more precise indications for this approach.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
柔性输尿管镜检查中使用输尿管入路鞘的影响:疗效和安全性的比较研究。
目的:本研究评估了在柔性输尿管镜(fURS)治疗尿石症期间使用入路鞘(AS)的影响,重点关注结石清除率、手术时间和并发症等结果。方法:这项前瞻性随机研究于2021年8月至2022年8月在Badr医院、Helwan大学和Ain Shams大学医院进行。患者被系统地随机分为两组(fURS伴AS:33名患者,无AS:31名患者),并接受术前和术后评估,包括实验室测试和成像。监测了可能的手术相关风险,如结石进入失败、疼痛、出血和败血症。结果:两组患者在人口学特征或术前结石发现方面具有可比性(p > 0.05)。然而,无鞘组的手术时间更短(79.4 ± 15.3 分钟与90.4 ± 16.7 鞘管组的分钟数,p = 0.008)。两组术中并发症发生率,包括入路失败、手术终止、输尿管损伤和出血,具有可比性(p > 术后结石清除率(78.8%对71.0%,p = 0.305)和平均残余结石大小(2.7 ± 3.5 mm与3.1 ± 3.1 mm,p = 0.687)无显著差异。结论:本研究表明,无入路鞘的fURS可以为治疗上输尿管和肾结石提供一种有效且同等有效的选择。然而,需要更多样本量更大、随访时间更长的研究来验证这些发现,并为这种方法建立更精确的适应症。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
What is the relationship between penile cancer and the microbiome? A scoping review Cumulative morbidity of ureteroscopy for upper tract urothelial carcinoma Recommendations on the treatment of metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer: Patient selection Consensus update on the therapeutic approach to patients with neurogenic detrusor overactivity Quality of life following transobturator sling surgery for female stress urinary incontinence
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1