Efficiency of retrograde intrarenal surgery in lower pole stones: disposable flexible ureterorenoscope or reusable flexible ureterorenoscope?
- 18 March 2021
- journal article
- research article
- Published by Springer Nature in World Journal of Urology
- Vol. 39 (9) , 3643-3650
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
This publication has 25 references indexed in Scilit:
- The Economic Implications of a Reusable Flexible Digital Ureteroscope: A Cost-Benefit AnalysisJournal of Urology, 2017
- The Effect of Repair Costs on the Profitability of a Ureteroscopy ProgramJournal of Endourology, 2015
- Retrograde Intrarenal Surgery vs Extracorporeal Shock Wave Lithotripsy for Intermediate Size Inferior Pole Calculi: A Prospective Assessment of Objective and Subjective OutcomesUrology, 2014
- Flexible Ureterorenoscopy for Lower Pole Stones: Influence of the Collecting System's AnatomyJournal of Endourology, 2014
- Outcomes of Flexible Ureterorenoscopy and Laser Fragmentation for Renal Stones: Comparison Between Digital and Conventional UreteroscopeUrology, 2013
- Prospective Evaluation and Classification of Ureteral Wall Injuries Resulting from Insertion of a Ureteral Access Sheath During Retrograde Intrarenal SurgeryJournal of Urology, 2013
- Standardized Flexible Ureteroscopic Technique to Improve Stone-free RatesUrology, 2012
- Durability of the Next-generation Flexible Fiberoptic Ureteroscopes: A Randomized Prospective Multi-institutional Clinical TrialUrology, 2010
- Classification of Surgical ComplicationsAnnals of Surgery, 2004
- Lower-Pole Caliceal Stone Clearance after Shockwave Lithotripsy, Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy, and Flexible Ureteroscopy: Impact of Radiographic Spatial AnatomyJournal of Endourology, 1998