Outcomes with ureteral access sheath in retrograde intrarenal surgery: a retrospective comparative analysis

Utilization of Ureteral Access Sheath in Retrograde Intrarenal Surgery: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Background and Objectives: This paper evaluates the efficacy and safety of ureteral access sheath (UAS) utilization in retrograde intrarenal surgery (RIRS). Materials and Methods: We searched PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library up to 30 August 2023. The inclusion criteria comprised English-language original studies on RIRS with or without UAS in humans. The primary outcome was SFR, while the secondary outcomes included intraoperative and postoperative complications, the lengths of the operation and the hospitalization period, and the duration of the fluoroscopy. Subgroup analyses and a sensitivity analysis were performed. Publication bias was assessed using funnel plots and Egger's regression tests. Dichotomous variables were analyzed using odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs), while mean differences (MDs) were employed for continuous variables. Results: We included 22 studies in our analysis. These spanned 2001 to 2023, involving 12,993 patients and 13,293 procedures. No significant difference in SFR was observed between the UAS and non-UAS groups (OR = 0.90, 95% CI 0.63-1.30, p = 0.59). Intraoperative (OR = 1.13, 95% CI 0.75-1.69, p = 0.5) and postoperative complications (OR = 1.29, 95% CI 0.89-1.87, p = 0.18) did not significantly differ between the groups. UAS usage increased operation times (MD = 8.30, 95% CI 2.51-14.10, p = 0.005) and fluoroscopy times (MD = 5.73, 95% CI 4.55-6.90, p < 0.001). No publication bias was detected for any outcome. Conclusions: In RIRS, UAS usage did not significantly affect SFR, complications, or hospitalization time. However, it increased operation time and fluoroscopy time. Routine UAS usage is not supported, and decisions should be patient-specific. Further studies with larger sample sizes and standardized assessments are needed to refine UAS utilization in RIRS.

Ureteral access sheaths in RIRS: a retrospective, comparative, single-center study

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.

Does preoperative silodosin administration facilitate ureteral dilatation during flexible ureterorenoscopy? A randomized clinical trial

PURPOSE

To assess whether preoperative administration of silodosin can facilitate the placement of ureteral access sheath (UAS) prior to flexible ureteroscopy (F-URS) and reduce the occurrence of ureteric injury in challenging cases.

METHODS

This prospective randomized clinical trial was carried out on 147 patients diagnosed with upper ureteric stone or stone kidney, non-stented. The patients were randomly divided into two equal groups. Group A (silodosin group) included patients in whom F-URS was done with daily preoperative intake of 8 mg silodosin for 1 week and group B (placebo/control group) included patients in whom F-URS was done with daily preoperative intake of placebo tablets.

RESULTS

In group A, a total of 23 (33.3%) experienced ureteral wall injury following UAS insertion, while in group B, this occurred in 40 patients (59.7%). There was a statistically significant difference in the grade of ureteral wall injury between the two groups (P < 0.001). In the multiple regression analysis, age, operative time and silodosin were found to be significant risk factors for ureteral wall injury (P = 0.007, 0.041 and < 0.001, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

The administration of silodosin prior to retrograde intrarenal surgery (RIRS) effectively prevented significant ureteral wall damage and reduced initial postoperative discomfort.

Efficacy of various laser devices on lithotripsy in retrograde intrarenal surgery used to treat 1-2 cm kidney stones: A prospective randomized study

AIMS

To compare the efficacy of different laser devices and power ranges on lithotripsy in retrograde intrarenal surgery (RIRS) for 1-2 cm kidney stones.

METHODS

A total of 223 participants undergoing RIRS for 1-2 cm kidney stones at our clinic between January 2015 and January 2017 were recruited for this prospective study (NCT02451319). Two hundred and four participants included in our study were randomly allocated into either ≤20 W with 20 W laser device (group 1) or ≤20 W with 30 W laser device (group 2) or >20 W with 30 W laser device (group 3).

RESULTS

There was no significant difference between the groups in terms of demographic and stone characteristics. Operation and fluoroscopy times were significantly longer (P = .003 and P < .001, respectively) and stone-free rate (SFR) was significantly lower in group 1 (P = .002). Complications were similar in all three groups (P = .512). However, post-operative pain scores were significantly higher in group 1 (P < .001). The multivariate analysis revealed that stone size (95% CI: 0.654-0.878, OR = 0.758, P < .001), ureteral access sheath use (95% CI: 1.003-20.725, OR = 4.560, P = .049), and lithotripsy with 30 W laser device (95% CI: 1.304-11.632, OR = 3.895, P = .015; 95% CI: 1.738-17.281, OR = 5.480, P = .004, groups 2 and 3, respectively) were independent factors predicting SFR for RIRS used in 1-2 cm kidney stones.

CONCLUSION

The 30 W laser device used in RIRS for 1-2 cm kidney stones had shorter operation times, higher SFRs, and lower post-operative pain scores compared with the 20 W device. The 30 W laser device is safe and more efficient in RIRS for treatment of 1-2 cm kidney stones.