Top

World Journal of Urology

Published in:

01-06-2018 | Original Article

Increasing the size of ureteral access sheath during retrograde intrarenal surgery improves surgical efficiency without increasing complications

Authors: Chad R. Tracy, George M. Ghareeb, Charles J. Paul, Nathan A. Brooks

Published in: World Journal of Urology | Issue 6/2018

Abstract

Purpose

To directly compare intraoperative and post-operative outcomes and complications between three groups undergoing ureteroscopy: no ureteral access sheath, 12/14 Fr and larger 14/16 Fr ureteral access sheaths (UAS).

Methods

We retrospectively reviewed demographic, pre-operative, intraoperative, and post-operative data of 257 patients who underwent ureteroscopy for nephrolithiasis by a single surgeon from January 2013 through July 2015. Patients were separated into three groups: no UAS, a 12/14 Fr UAS, or 14/16 Fr UAS. Outcomes included differences in stone-free rate, post-procedure-related events (PRE), ureteral injury rate (measured by early post-operative hydronephrosis), and post-operative complications.

Results

A UAS was used in 65.4% (168/257) patients, with 73.8% (124/168) utilizing a 12/14 Fr UAS and 26.2% (44/168) utilizing a 14/16 Fr UAS. Those patients in whom a 14/16 Fr UAS was employed had greater stone burden compared to the 12/14 Fr UAS group (180.8 ± 18.0 vs. 104 ± 9.1 mm², p < 0.001). When comparing 12/14 Fr and 14/16 Fr ureteral access sheaths, there was no significant difference in ureteral injury rate, complications (10.5 vs. 11.4%, respectively; p = 0.87), or overall stone-free rate (78.1 vs. 81.3%, p = 0.70). The mean amount of stone burden treated per minute of operative time was more than 30% higher in the 14/16 Fr UAS group compared to 12/14 Fr UAS group (2.11 vs. 1.62 mm²/min; p = 0.01).

Conclusion

The use of a 14/16 Fr UAS allows for similar stone-free rate and improved operative efficiency with no increased risk of ureteral injury or post-operative complications when compared to the 12/14 Fr UAS.

Aboumarzouk OM, Monga M, Kata SG, Traxer O, Somani BK (2012) Flexible ureteroscopy and laser lithotripsy for stones > 2 cm: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Endourol 26:1257–1263. https://doi.org/10.1089/end.2012.0217 CrossRefPubMed

Bader MJ, Gratzke C, Walther S, Weidlich P, Staehler M, Seitz M, Sroka R, Reich O, Stief CG, Schlenker B (2010) Efficacy of retrograde ureteropyeloscopic holmium laser lithotripsy for intrarenal calculi > 2cm. Urol Res 38:397–402. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00240-010-0258-5 CrossRefPubMed

Kawahara T, Ito H, Terao H, Ishigaki H, Ogawa T, Uemura H, Kubota Y, Matsuzaki J (2012) Preoperative stenting for ureteroscopic lithotripsy for a large renal stone. Int J Urol 19:881–885. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1442-2042.2012.03046 CrossRefPubMed

Chu L, Sternberg KM, Averch TD (2011) Preoperative stenting decreases operative time and reoperative rates of ureteroscopy. J Endourol 25:751–754. https://doi.org/10.1089/end.2010.0400 CrossRefPubMed

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 189:580–584. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2012.08.197 CrossRefPubMed

Stern JM, Yiee J, Park P (2007) Safety and efficacy of ureteral access sheaths. J Endourol 21:119–123. https://doi.org/10.1089/end.2007.9997 CrossRefPubMed

Delvecchio FC, Auge BK, Brizuela RM, Weizer AZ, Silverstein AD, Lallas CD, Pietrow PK, Albala DM, Preminger GM (2003) Assessment of stricture formation with the ureteral access sheath. Urology 61:518–522. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0090-4295(02)02433-0 CrossRefPubMed

Bockholt NA, Wild TT, Gupta A, Tracy CR (2012) Ureteric stent placement with extraction string: no strings attached? BJU Int 110:E1069–E1073. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1464-410X.2012.11219 CrossRefPubMed

Barnes KT, Bing MT, Tracy CR (2014) Do ureteric stent extraction strings affect stent-related quality of life or complications after ureteroscopy for urolithiasis: a prospective randomised control trial. BJU Int 113:605–609. https://doi.org/10.1111/bju.12541 CrossRefPubMed

10.

Torricelli FC, De S, Hinck B, Noble M, Monga M (2014) Flexible ureteroscopy with a ureteral access sheath: when to stent? Urology 83:278–281. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urology.2013.10.002 CrossRefPubMed

11.

Emre Sener T, Cloutier J, Villa L, Marson F, Butticè S, Doizi S, Traxer O (2015) Can we provide low intrarenal pressures with good irrigation flow by decreasing the size of ureteral access sheaths? J Endourol 30:49–55. https://doi.org/10.1089/end.2015.0387 CrossRef

12.

Shields JM, Bird VG, Graves R, Gómez-Marín O (2009) Impact of preoperative ureteral stenting on outcome of ureteroscopic treatment for urolithiasis. J Urol 182:2768–2774. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2009.08.043 CrossRefPubMed

13.

Rubenstein RA, Zhao LC, Loeb S, Shore DM, Nadler RB (2007) Prestenting improves ureteroscopic stone free rates. J Endourol 21:1277–1280. https://doi.org/10.1089/end.2007.9888 CrossRefPubMed

14.

Berquet G, Prunel P, Verhoest G, Methieu R, Bensalah K (2014) The use of a ureteral access sheath does not improve stone-free rate after ureteroscopy for upper urinary tract stones. World J Urol 32:229–232. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-013-1181-5 CrossRefPubMed

15.

Ghani KR, Wolf JS Jr (2015) What is the stone-free rate following flexible ureteroscopy for kidney stones? Nat Rev Urol 12:281–288. https://doi.org/10.1038/nrurol.2015.74 CrossRefPubMed

16.

L’Esperance JO, Ekeruo WO, Scales CD Jr, Marguet CG, Springhart WP, Maloney ME, Albala DM, Preminger GM (2005) Effect of ureteral access sheath on stone-free rates in patients undergoing ureteroscopic management of renal calculi. Urology 66:252–255. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urology.2005.03.019 CrossRefPubMed

17.

Traxer O, Wendt-Nordahl G, Sodha H, Rassweiler J, Meretyk S, Tefekli A, Coz F, de la Rosette JJ (2015) Differences in renal stone treatment and outcomes for patients treated either with or without the support of a ureteral access sheath: the clinical research office of the endourological society ureteroscopy global study. World J Urol 33:2137–2144. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-015-1582-8 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

18.

Chew B, Shah O, Sur R et al (2016) Dusting vs basketing during ureteroscopic lithotripsy—what is more efficacious? Interim analysis from a multi-centre prospective trial from the EDGE Research Consortium. J Urol 195(4):e407 (abstract no. PD18-10.) CrossRef

19.

Finch W, Johnston R, Shaida N, Winterbottom A, Wiseman O (2014) Measuring stone volume—three-dimensional software reconstruction or an ellipsoid algebra formula? BJU Int 113:610–614. https://doi.org/10.1111/bju.12456 CrossRefPubMed

20.

Lim SH, Jeong BC, Seo SI, Jeon SS, Han DH (2010) Treatment outcomes of retrograde intrarenal surgery for renal stones and predictive factors of stone-free. Korean J Urol 51:777–782. https://doi.org/10.4111/kju.2010.51.11.777 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

21.

Matlaga B, Chew B, Eisner B, Humphreys M, Knudsen B, Krambeck A, Pais V (2017) Ureteroscopic laser lithotripsy: a review of dusting vs fragmentation with extraction. J Endourol 31:1313. https://doi.org/10.1089/end.2017.0641.22 CrossRef

22.

Manger J, Mendoza P, Babayan R, Wang D (2009) Use of renal ultrasound to detect hydronephrosis after ureteroscopy. J Endourol 23:1399–1402. https://doi.org/10.1089/end.2009.0392 CrossRefPubMed

23.

Ito H, Kawahara T, Terao H, Ogawa T, Yao M, Kubota Y, Matsuzaki J (2013) Evaluation of preoperative measurement of stone surface area as a predictor of stone-free status after combined ureteroscopy with holmium laser lithotripsy: a single-center experience. J Endourol 27:715–721. https://doi.org/10.1089/end.2012.0548 CrossRefPubMed

24.

Ito H, Kawahara T, Terao H, Ogawa T, Yao M, Kubota Y, Matsuzaki J (2012) The most reliable preoperative assessment of renal stone burden as a predictor of stone-free status after flexible ureteroscopy with holmium laser lithotripsy: a single-center experience. Urology 80:524–528. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urology.2012.04.001 CrossRefPubMed

Title: Increasing the size of ureteral access sheath during retrograde intrarenal surgery improves surgical efficiency without increasing complications
Authors: Chad R. Tracy
George M. Ghareeb
Charles J. Paul
Nathan A. Brooks
Publication date: 01-06-2018
Publisher: Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Published in: World Journal of Urology / Issue 6/2018
Print ISSN: 0724-4983
Electronic ISSN: 1433-8726
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-018-2204-z

At a glance: The ONWARDS insulin icodec trials

Springer Medicine

Increasing the size of ureteral access sheath during retrograde intrarenal surgery improves surgical efficiency without increasing complications

Abstract

Purpose

Methods

Results

Conclusion

At a glance: The ONWARDS insulin icodec trials

Springer Medicine

Abstract

Purpose

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Please log in to get access to this content

Other articles of this Issue 6/2018

Chronic urinary tract infection and bladder carcinoma risk: a meta-analysis of case–control and cohort studies

Long-term oncological outcomes after robotic partial nephrectomy for renal cell carcinoma: a prospective multicentre study

Multicenter evaluation of guideline adherence for pelvic lymph node dissection in patients undergoing open retropubic vs. laparoscopic or robot assisted radical prostatectomy according to the recent German S3 guideline on prostate cancer

Modified York Mason technique for repair of iatrogenic recto-urinary fistula: 20 years of the Montsouris experience

Concordance of Gleason grading with three-dimensional ultrasound systematic biopsy and biopsy core pre-embedding

Prostatic injection of botulinum toxin is not inferior to optimized medical therapy in the management of lower urinary tract symptoms due to benign prostatic hyperplasia: results of a randomized clinical trial