Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

LIVE: Thursday 27th June 2024, 18:00-19:30 (CEST)
Join our expert panel to discover why you need to understand the drivers of non-adherence in your patients, and how you can optimize medication adherence in your clinics to drastically improve patient outcomes.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
World Journal of Urology
Published in: World Journal of Urology 2/2015

01-02-2015 | Topic Paper

Disposable devices for RIRS: Where do we stand in 2013? What do we need in the future?

Authors: Richard H. Shin, Michael E. Lipkin, Glenn M. Preminger

Published in: World Journal of Urology | Issue 2/2015

Login to get access

Abstract

Purpose

Disposable devices for retrograde intrarenal surgery (RIRS) form a significant part of the urologist’s armamentarium for the endoscopic management of urologic diseases. Herein, we provide an overview of the literature regarding the advances and controversies of these devices.

Methods

A PubMed search was used to identify the literature discussing the subject of disposable devices for RIRS. Articles published between 2012 and 2013 were considered.

Results

Ureteral access implements including access sheaths, wires, and dilators are an area of both improvement and controversy regarding their proper use. The safety, effectiveness, and limitations of lithotrites continue to be refined. Stone retrieval devices are undergoing persistent miniaturization, and their use may prove to be cost effective. The debate over perioperative stenting remains, while symptom management is explored. A cost-effective option for disposable flexible ureteroscopy shows promise.

Conclusions

While rapid advances in technology and knowledge continue, continual improvements are necessary. Disposable equipment needs persistent refinement and possible miniaturization. More efficient fragment retrieval devices are needed. Durability of laser fibers and safety within ureteroscopes needs to be improved. Reducing stent morbidity remains an ongoing challenge. Lastly, costs need to be reduced by the further development of disposable flexible ureteroscopes and in the recyclability of disposable devices to improve availability worldwide.
Literature
1.
2.
Kourambas J, Byrne RR, Preminger GM (2001) Does a ureteral access sheath facilitate ureteroscopy? J Urol 165(3):789–793PubMedCrossRef
3.
Traxer O, Thomas A (2013) Prospective evaluation and classification of ureteral wall injuries resulting from insertion of a ureteral access sheath during retrograde intrarenal surgery. J Urol 189(2):580–584PubMedCrossRef
4.
Delvecchio FC et al (2003) Assessment of stricture formation with the ureteral access sheath. Urology 61(3): 518–522; discussion 522
5.
Bach C et al (2012) The new digital flexible ureteroscopes: ‘size does matter’–increased ureteric access sheath use! Urol Int 89(4):408–411PubMedCrossRef
6.
Ayyathurai R et al (2012) Single-center clinical comparison of two reinforced ureteral access sheaths for retrograde ureteroscopic treatment of urinary lithiasis. Int Urol Nephrol 44(2):409–414PubMedCrossRef
7.
Kawahara T et al (2012) Preoperative stenting for ureteroscopic lithotripsy for a large renal stone. Int J Urol 19(9):881–885PubMedCrossRef
8.
Berquet G et al (2013) The use of a ureteral access sheath does not improve stone-free rate after ureteroscopy for upper urinary tract stones. World J Urol 32(1):229–232PubMedCrossRef
9.
Doizi S et al (2013) First clinical evaluation of a new innovative ureteral access sheath (Re-Trace): a European study. World J Urol 32(1):143–147PubMedCrossRef
10.
Sarkissian C et al (2012) Systematic evaluation of hybrid guidewires: shaft stiffness, lubricity, and tip configuration. Urology 79(3):513–517PubMedCrossRef
11.
Ulvik O, Wentzel-Larsen T, Ulvik NM (2013) A safety guidewire influences the pushing and pulling forces needed to move the ureteroscope in the ureter: a clinical randomized, crossover study. J Endourol 27(7):850–855PubMedCrossRef
12.
Bourdoumis A et al (2013) The difficult ureter: stent and come back or balloon dilate and proceed with ureteroscopy? What does the evidence say? Urology 83(1):1–3PubMedCrossRef
13.
Kuntz N et al (2013) Balloon dilation of the ureter: a contemporary review of outcomes and complications. J Endourol 27:A402CrossRef
14.
Hendlin K et al (2012) Systematic evaluation of a novel foot-pump ureteroscopic irrigation system. J Endourol 26(2):126–129PubMedCrossRef
15.
Hendlin K, Weiland D, Monga M (2008) Impact of irrigation systems on stone migration. J Endourol 22(3):453–458PubMedCrossRef
16.
Wiener SV, Deters LA, Pais VM Jr (2012) Effect of stone composition on operative time during ureteroscopic holmium:yttrium-aluminum-garnet laser lithotripsy with active fragment retrieval. Urology 80(4):790–794PubMedCrossRef
17.
Khemees TA et al (2013) Evaluation of a new 240-mum single-use holmium:yAG optical fiber for flexible ureteroscopy. J Endourol 27(4):475–479PubMedCrossRef
18.
Magheli A et al (2012) Critical analysis of the miniaturized stone basket: effect on deflection and flow rate. J Endourol 26(3):275–277PubMedCrossRef
19.
Bedke J et al (2013) 1.2 French stone retrieval baskets further enhance irrigation flow in flexible ureterorenoscopy. Urolithiasis 41(2):153–157PubMedCrossRef
20.
Cordes J et al (2013) Damage of stone baskets by endourologic lithotripters: a laboratory study of 5 lithotripters and 4 basket types. Adv Urol 2013:632790PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef
21.
Sarkissian C, Marchini GS, Monga M (2013) Endoscopic forceps for ureteroscopy: a comparative in vitro analysis. Urology 81(3):690–695PubMedCrossRef
22.
Wason SE et al (2012) Ureteroscopic biopsy of upper tract urothelial carcinoma using a novel ureteroscopic biopsy forceps. Can J Urol 19(6):6560–6565PubMed
23.
Netsch C et al (2012) Impact of preoperative ureteral stenting on stone-free rates of ureteroscopy for nephroureterolithiasis: a matched-paired analysis of 286 patients. Urology 80(6):1214–1219PubMedCrossRef
24.
Silay MS, Tanriverdi O, Miroglu C (2012) Re: Preoperative stenting decreases operative time and reoperative rates of ureteroscopy (from: Chu L, Sternberg KM, Averch TD. Preoperative stenting decreases operative time and reoperative rates of ureteroscopy. J Endourol 2011;25:751–754). J Endourol 26(1):75–76
25.
Hughes B et al (2013) The dilemma of post-ureteroscopy stenting. BJU Int 113(2):184–185CrossRef
26.
Song T et al (2012) Meta-analysis of postoperatively stenting or not in patients underwent ureteroscopic lithotripsy. Urol Res 40(1):67–77PubMedCrossRef
27.
Torricelli FC et al (2013) Flexible ureteroscopy with a ureteral access sheath: when to stent? Urology 83(2):278–281PubMedCrossRef
28.
Matani YS et al (2013) Emergency double-J stent insertion following uncomplicated Ureteroscopy: risk-factor analysis and recommendations. Int Braz J Urol 39(2):203–208PubMed
29.
Shigemura K et al (2012) How long should double J stent be kept in after ureteroscopic lithotripsy? Urol Res 40(4):373–376PubMedCrossRef
30.
Ozgur BC et al (2013) Bacterial colonization of double J stents and bacteriuria frequency. Kaohsiung J Med Sci 29(12):658–661PubMedCrossRef
31.
Nazim SM, Ather MH (2012) Alpha-blockers impact stent-related symptoms: a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. J Endourol 26(9):1237–1241PubMedCrossRef
32.
Kawahara T et al (2012) Changing to a loop-type ureteral stent decreases patients’ stent-related symptoms. Urol Res 40(6):763–767PubMedCrossRef
33.
Tadros NN et al (2013) A single dose of a non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID) prevents severe pain after ureteric stent removal: a prospective, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. BJU Int 111(1):101–105PubMedCrossRef
34.
Bresalier RS et al (2005) Cardiovascular events associated with rofecoxib in a colorectal adenoma chemoprevention trial. N Engl J Med 352(11):1092–1102PubMedCrossRef
35.
Johnson MT, Khemees TA, Knudsen BE (2013) Resilience of disposable endoscope optical fiber properties after repeat sterilization. J Endourol 27(1):71–74PubMedCrossRef
36.
Gu SP et al (2013) Clinical effectiveness of the PolyScope endoscope system combined with holmium laser lithotripsy in the treatment of upper urinary calculi with a diameter of less than 2 cm. Exp Ther Med 6(2):591–595PubMedCentralPubMed
37.
Palmero JL et al (2013) Results of retrograde intrarenal surgery in the treatment of renal stones greater than 2 cm. Actas Urol Esp 38(4):257–262PubMed
38.
Gurbuz C et al (2013) The cost analysis of flexible ureteroscopic lithotripsy in 302 cases. Urolithiasis 42(2):155–158PubMedCrossRef
39.
Maeda JL, Raetzman SO, Friedman BS (2012) What hospital inpatient services contributed the most to the 2001–2006 growth in the cost per case? Health Serv Res 47(5):1814–1835PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef
Metadata
Title
Disposable devices for RIRS: Where do we stand in 2013? What do we need in the future?
Authors
Richard H. Shin
Michael E. Lipkin
Glenn M. Preminger
Publication date
01-02-2015
Publisher
Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Published in
World Journal of Urology / Issue 2/2015
Print ISSN: 0724-4983
Electronic ISSN: 1433-8726
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-014-1368-4

Other articles of this Issue 2/2015

World Journal of Urology 2/2015 Go to the issue

Topic Paper

Kidney stones and imaging: What can your radiologist do for you?

Topic Paper

Diet: from food to stone

Topic Paper

Sky is no limit for ureteroscopy: extending the indications and special circumstances

Editorial

WJU special edition: surgical and medical management of stones

Topic Paper

Metabolic evaluation of urinary lithiasis: what urologists should know and do

Topic Paper

Shock wave lithotripsy: The new phoenix?