Endovisually guided zero radiation ureteral access sheath placement during ureterorenoscopy

Does ureteral access sheath affect the outcomes of retrograde intrarenal surgery: a prospective study

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate whether or not using a ureteral access sheath (UAS) affects the perioperative outcomes after retrograde intrarenal surgery (RIRS) performed in patients with renal stones.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

An observational study was carried out using data of 60 patients who underwent RIRS with the diagnosis of renal stones <2 cm between February 2017 and November 2017 at our institution. The data of the 60 patients were registered prospectively during the study period. Patients were divided into two groups based on whether a UAS was used (Group 1-30 patients) or not (Group 2-30 patients) during RIRS. Perioperative outcomes and complications were collected and analyzed.

RESULTS

The stone burdens of the patients in Group 1 and in Group 2 were 76.59 mm² and 62.19 mm², respectively (p = .160). There was no statistically significant difference in SFR (p = 1.000), complication rates (p = .418), and operation time (p = .411) between both groups, except for the fact that postoperative pain intensity levels using the VAS were slightly higher in Group 2 (4.13 ± 2.37 vs. 5.33 ± 1.89, p = .064).

CONCLUSIONS

In the present study, we showed that similar success and acceptable complication rates can be achieved without using UAS compared to using UAS during RIRS. However, using UAS may provide an advantage in reducing postoperative pain after RIRS.

Retrograde intrarenal surgery: Past, present, and future

With the recent technological advancements in endourology, retrograde intrarenal surgery has become a more popular procedure for treatment of urolithiasis. Furthermore, since the introduction of new laser systems and advanced flexible ureteroscopy with miniaturized ureteroscopes, the treatment indications for retrograde intrarenal surgery have expanded to include not only larger renal stones of >2 cm but also upper urinary tract urothelial carcinoma, ureteral stricture, and idiopathic renal hematuria. Clinicians must keep up with these trends and make good use of these technologies in the rapidly changing field of endourology. Simultaneously, we must consider the risk of various complications including thermal injury due to laser use, ureteral injury caused by the ureteral access sheath, and radiation exposure during retrograde intrarenal surgery with fluoroscopic guidance. This review focuses on the past, present, and future of retrograde intrarenal surgery and provides many topics and clinical options for urologists to consider.

Impact of ureteral access sheath on renal stone treatment: prospective comparative non-randomised outcomes over a 7-year period

PURPOSE

To compare the outcomes (stone free rate and complications) of renal stone treatment with and without the use of ureteral access sheath (UAS). The worldwide use of UAS has risen over the last decade; however, questions still remain on the safety and outcomes with its use. We wanted to look at the role of UAS for treatment of consecutive renal stones over a 7-year period.

METHODS

The outcomes of flexible ureteroscopy and stone treatment (FURS) for renal stones with and without the use of UAS was prospectively compared from March 2012 to July 2018. Patients were divided into two groups: group-1 where UAS was used for stone treatment and group-2 where a UAS was not used. Data were collected prospectively on consecutive patients for demographics, stone size, location and number, pre and post-operative stent usage, operative time duration, stone free rate (SFR), length of stay and complications.

RESULTS

During the study period, 338 patients underwent FURS for renal stones, of which a UAS was used for 203 (60%) patients. The mean age of patients was 56 years (range 2-89 years) with a male:female ratio of 204:134. The mean cumulative stone size and the mean number of stones was 16.5 ± 10.8 mm and 11.37 ± 8.08 mm (P < 0.001), and 2.17 ± 1.99 and 1.66 ± 1.50 (P = 0.009) for groups 1 and 2 respectively. The pre and post-operative stent insertion rates were similar in the two groups. The procedural time was longer in group-1 (54.8 ± 25.8 min) compared to group-2 (41.3 ± 22.2 min) (P < 0.001). The SFR for group-1 (88%) was slightly lower than group-2 (94%) although this was not statistically significant (P = 0.07). There were no intra-operative complications in either of the groups. Post-operative complications were seen in eight patients in group-1 (7 Clavien I/II and 1 Clavien IVa) and two patients in group-2 (Clavien I) (P = 0.19).

CONCLUSION

The use of UAS for renal stones is safe with no intra-operative complications noted in our series. Good stone-free rates were obtained for large and multiple renal stones with a small risk of minor complications post-operatively.