Top

World Journal of Urology

Published in:

01-02-2014 | Original Article

The use of a ureteral access sheath does not improve stone-free rate after ureteroscopy for upper urinary tract stones

Authors: Gaetan Berquet, Paul Prunel, Grégory Verhoest, Romain Mathieu, Karim Bensalah

Published in: World Journal of Urology | Issue 1/2014

Abstract

Purpose

To evaluate the impact of a ureteral access sheath (UAS) on stone-free (SF) rate after flexible ureteroscopy for upper urinary tract stones.

Materials and methods

We retrospectively reviewed 280 patients who underwent flexible ureteroscopy (URS) for upper urinary tract stone between 2009 and 2012. Patients were divided into two groups based on whether a UAS was used (n = 157) or not (n = 123). SF rate was evaluated at one and three months after surgery by abdominal imaging. Quantitative and qualitative variables were compared with Student’s t test and χ2 test, respectively. A logistic regression model was used to determine the predictive factors of SF status.

Results

Stone size was similar in both groups (15.1 vs. 13.7 mm, p = 0.21). SF rates at one and 3 months were comparable in UAS and non-UAS groups (76 vs. 78 % and 86 vs. 87 %, p = 0.88 and 0.89, respectively). Complication rates were similar in both groups (12.7 vs. 12.1 %, p = 0.78). In multivariable analysis, stone size was the only predictive factor of SF rate (p = 0.016).

Conclusion

The routine use of a UAS did not improve SF rate in patients undergoing flexible URS for upper urinary tract calculi.

Stern JM, Yiee J, Park S (2007) Safety and efficacy of ureteral access sheaths. J Endourol 21:119–123PubMedCrossRef

Vanlangendonck R, Landman J (2004) Ureteral access strategies: pro-access sheath. Urol Clin North Am 31:71–81PubMedCrossRef

Rehman J, Monga M, Landman J et al (2003) Characterization of intrapelvic pressure during ureteropyeloscopy with ureteral access sheaths. Urology 61:713–718PubMedCrossRef

Kourambas J, Byrne RR, Preminger GM (2001) Does a ureteral access sheath facilitate ureteroscopy? J Urol 165:789–793PubMedCrossRef

Auge BK, Pietrow PK, Lallas CD et al (2004) Ureteral access sheath provides protection against elevated renal pressures during routine flexible ureteroscopic stone manipulation. J Endourol 18:33–36PubMedCrossRef

L’Esperance JO, Ekeruo WO, Scales CD Jr et al (2005) Effect of ureteral access sheath on stone-free rates in patients undergoing ureteroscopic management of renal calculi. Urology 66:252–255PubMedCrossRef

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 189:580–584PubMedCrossRef

Dindo D, Demartines N, Clavien PA (2004) Classification of surgical complications: a new proposal with evaluation in a cohort of 6336 patients and results of a survey. Ann Surg 240:205–213PubMedCrossRef

Wignall GR, Canales BK, Denstedt JD et al (2008) Minimally invasive approaches to upper urinary tract urolithiasis. Urol Clin North Am 35:441–454PubMedCrossRef

10.

Chow GK, Patterson DE, Blute ML (2003) JW: Ureteroscopy: effect of technology and technique on clinical practice. J Urol 170:99–102PubMedCrossRef

11.

Wendt-Nordahl G, Mut T, Krombach P et al (2011) Do new generation flexible ureterorenoscopes offer a higher treatment success than their predecessors? Urol Res 39:185–188PubMedCrossRef

12.

Breda A, Ogunyemi O, Leppert JT et al (2009) Flexible ureteroscopy and laser lithotripsy for multiple unilateral intrarenal stones. Eur Urol 55:1190–1196PubMedCrossRef

13.

Preminger GM (2006) Management of lower pole renal calculi: shock wave lithotripsy versus percutaneous nephrolithotomy versus flexible ureteroscopy. Urol Res 34:108–111PubMedCrossRef

14.

Srisubat A, Potisat S, Lojanapiwat B, et al (2009) Extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL) versus percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL) or retrograde intrarenal surgery (RIRS) for kidney stones. Cochrane Database Syst Rev: CD007044

15.

Takayasu H, Aso Y (1974) Recent development for pyeloureteroscopy: guide tube method for its introduction into the ureter. J Urol 112:176–178PubMed

16.

Aboumarzouk OM, Monga M, Kata SG, et al (2012) Flexible ureteroscopy and laser lithotripsy for stones >2 cm: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Endourol 26(10):1257–1263

17.

Aboumarzouk OM, Somani B and Monga M (2012) Safety and efficacy of ureteroscopic lithotripsy for stone disease in obese patients: a systematic review of the literature. BJU Int 110(8 Part B):E374–380

18.

Sofer M, Watterson JD, Wollin TA et al (2002) Holmium:YAG laser lithotripsy for upper urinary tract calculi in 598 patients. J Urol 167:31–34PubMedCrossRef

19.

Hyams ES, Bruhn A, Lipkin M et al (2010) Heterogeneity in the reporting of disease characteristics and treatment outcomes in studies evaluating treatments for nephrolithiasis. J Endourol 24:1411–1414PubMedCrossRef

20.

Rebuck DA, Macejko A, Bhalani V et al (2011) The natural history of renal stone fragments following ureteroscopy. Urology 77:564–568PubMedCrossRef

21.

El-Nahas AR, El-Assmy AM, Madbouly K et al (2006) Predictors of clinical significance of residual fragments after extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy for renal stones. J Endourol 20:870–874PubMedCrossRef

22.

Buchholz NP, Meier-Padel S, Rutishauser G (1997) Minor residual fragments after extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy: spontaneous clearance or risk factor for recurrent stone formation? J Endourol 11:227–232PubMedCrossRef

23.

Kang DE, Maloney MM, Haleblian GE et al (2007) Effect of medical management on recurrent stone formation following percutaneous nephrolithotomy. J Urol. 177:1785–1788 discussion 1788–1789PubMedCrossRef

24.

Abrahams HM, Stoller ML (2004) The argument against the routine use of ureteral access sheaths. Urol Clin North Am 31:83–87PubMedCrossRef

25.

Lallas CD, Auge BK, Raj GV et al (2002) Laser Doppler flowmetric determination of ureteral blood flow after ureteral access sheath placement. J Endourol 16:583–590PubMedCrossRef

26.

Delvecchio FC, Auge BK, Brizuela RM et al (2003) Assessment of stricture formation with the ureteral access sheath. Urology. 61:518–522 discussion 522PubMedCrossRef

Title: The use of a ureteral access sheath does not improve stone-free rate after ureteroscopy for upper urinary tract stones
Authors: Gaetan Berquet
Paul Prunel
Grégory Verhoest
Romain Mathieu
Karim Bensalah
Publication date: 01-02-2014
Publisher: Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Published in: World Journal of Urology / Issue 1/2014
Print ISSN: 0724-4983
Electronic ISSN: 1433-8726
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-013-1181-5

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

Springer Medicine

The use of a ureteral access sheath does not improve stone-free rate after ureteroscopy for upper urinary tract stones

Abstract

Purpose

Materials and methods

Results

Conclusion

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

Springer Medicine

Abstract

Purpose

Materials and methods

Results

Conclusion

Please log in to get access to this content

Other articles of this Issue 1/2014

External validation of the RENAL nephrometry score nomogram for predicting high-grade renal cell carcinoma in solid, enhancing, and small renal masses

Sequential therapy with targeted agents in metastatic renal cell carcinoma: beyond second-line and overcoming drug resistance

Bilateral urinary calculi with discordant stone composition

Comparison of oncological outcomes between retropubic radical prostatectomy and robot-assisted radical prostatectomy: an analysis stratified by surgical experience

Targeted therapy in renal cell carcinoma: moving from molecular agents to specific immunotherapy

Robotic partial nephrectomy shortens warm ischemia time, reducing suturing time kinetics even for an experienced laparoscopic surgeon: a comparative analysis