Skip to main content
Top
Published in: World Journal of Urology 11/2023

26-09-2023 | Original Article

Intrarenal pressure study using 7.5 French flexible ureteroscope with or without ureteral access sheath in an ex-vivo porcine kidney model

Authors: Zhenyuan Han, Baosen Wang, Xiaohui Liu, Tao Jing, WenSu Yue, Yuliang Wang, Dong Wang

Published in: World Journal of Urology | Issue 11/2023

Login to get access

Abstract

Introduction

7.5F digital fURS and 9.5/11.5F ureteral access sheaths (UAS), both conventional (cUAS) and vacuum-assisted (vaUAS), are commercially available. Irrigation increases intrarenal pressure (IRP). This study analyzes the IRP with various irrigation rates using 7.5F fURS without UAS or with either cUAS or vaUAS in an ex-vivo porcine model. Pyelo-tubular backflow was also studied during these experiments.

Materials and methods

11 porcine kidneys were used. 7.5F digital fURS was tested without UAS and with 9.5/11.5F cUAS and vaUAS. 6F pressure monitor catheters were placed into the upper and lower calyces. IRPs were recorded under different irrigation rates. When vaUAS was used, the air vent was either open or closed. 300 mmHg aspiration pressure was chosen. Lastly, contrasted irrigation fluid was delivered until IRP reached above 30 mmHg. Fluoroscopy images were obtained at 5 mmHg intervals over this threshold to study the pyelo-tubular backflow.

Results

Using cUAS, IRP reached 30 mmHg with irrigation rates between 60 and 70 cc/min. Using vaUAS with vent closed, IRP never exceeded 10 mmHg with irrigation up to 120 cc/min. vaUAS with vent open performed marginally better than cUAS. fURS without UAS performed better than cUAS. Pyelo-tubular backflow became prominent at 40 mmHg.

Conclusion

In an ex-vivo porcine model, 7.5F fURS could be used safely without UAS with irrigation rates up to 120 cc/min. The safety margin dropped to 60–70 cc/min with cUAS. vaUAS with vent closed maintained IRP < 10 mmHg with irrigation rates up to 120 cc/min. Pyelo-tubular backflow was observed with IRP > 35 mmHg.
Literature
1.
go back to reference Hinman F, Redewill FH (1926) Pyelovenous back flow. J Am Med Assoc 87(16):1287–1293CrossRef Hinman F, Redewill FH (1926) Pyelovenous back flow. J Am Med Assoc 87(16):1287–1293CrossRef
3.
go back to reference Jung HU, Frimodt-Moller PC, Osther PJ et al (2006) Pharmacological effect on pyeloureteric dynamics with a clinical perspective: a review of the literature. Urol Res 34(6):341–350CrossRefPubMed Jung HU, Frimodt-Moller PC, Osther PJ et al (2006) Pharmacological effect on pyeloureteric dynamics with a clinical perspective: a review of the literature. Urol Res 34(6):341–350CrossRefPubMed
4.
go back to reference Wang D, Han Z, Bi Y et al (2022) Comparison of intrarenal pressure between convention and vacuum-assisted ureteral access sheath using an ex vivo porcine kidney model. World J Urol 40(12):3055–3060CrossRefPubMed Wang D, Han Z, Bi Y et al (2022) Comparison of intrarenal pressure between convention and vacuum-assisted ureteral access sheath using an ex vivo porcine kidney model. World J Urol 40(12):3055–3060CrossRefPubMed
6.
go back to reference 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(1):33–36CrossRefPubMed 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(1):33–36CrossRefPubMed
7.
go back to reference Wilson WT, Preminger GM (1990) Intrarenal pressures generated during flexible deflectable ureterorenoscopy. J Endourol 4:135–141CrossRef Wilson WT, Preminger GM (1990) Intrarenal pressures generated during flexible deflectable ureterorenoscopy. J Endourol 4:135–141CrossRef
9.
go back to reference Fang L, Xie GH, Zheng Z et al (2019) The effect of ratio of endoscope-sheath diameter on intrapelvic pressure during flexible ureteroscopic lasertripsy. J Endourol 33(2):132–139CrossRefPubMed Fang L, Xie GH, Zheng Z et al (2019) The effect of ratio of endoscope-sheath diameter on intrapelvic pressure during flexible ureteroscopic lasertripsy. J Endourol 33(2):132–139CrossRefPubMed
10.
go back to reference Monga M, Best S, Venkatesh R et al (2004) Prospective randomized comparison of 2 ureteral access sheaths during flexible retrograde ureteroscopy. J Urol 172(2):572–573CrossRefPubMed Monga M, Best S, Venkatesh R et al (2004) Prospective randomized comparison of 2 ureteral access sheaths during flexible retrograde ureteroscopy. J Urol 172(2):572–573CrossRefPubMed
11.
go back to reference Monga M, Bodie J, Ercole B (2004) Is there a role for small-diameter ureteral access sheaths? Impact on irrigant flow and intrapelvic pressures. Urology 64(3):439–441CrossRefPubMed Monga M, Bodie J, Ercole B (2004) Is there a role for small-diameter ureteral access sheaths? Impact on irrigant flow and intrapelvic pressures. Urology 64(3):439–441CrossRefPubMed
12.
go back to reference Wright A, Williams K, Somani B, Rukin N (2015) Intrarenal pressure and irrigation flow with commonly used ureteric access sheaths and instruments. Cent Eur J Urol 68(4):434–438 Wright A, Williams K, Somani B, Rukin N (2015) Intrarenal pressure and irrigation flow with commonly used ureteric access sheaths and instruments. Cent Eur J Urol 68(4):434–438
13.
go back to reference Thomsen HS, Larsen S, Talner LB (1982) Pyelorenal backflow during retrograde pyelography in normal and ischemic porcine kidneys. A radiologic and pathoanatomic study. Eur Urol 8(5):291–297CrossRefPubMed Thomsen HS, Larsen S, Talner LB (1982) Pyelorenal backflow during retrograde pyelography in normal and ischemic porcine kidneys. A radiologic and pathoanatomic study. Eur Urol 8(5):291–297CrossRefPubMed
14.
go back to reference Noureldin YA, Kallidonis P, Ntasiotis P et al (2019) The effect of irrigation power and ureteral access sheath diameter on the maximal intra-pelvic pressure during ureteroscopy: in vivo experimental study in a live anesthetized pig. J Endourol. 33(9):725–729CrossRefPubMed Noureldin YA, Kallidonis P, Ntasiotis P et al (2019) The effect of irrigation power and ureteral access sheath diameter on the maximal intra-pelvic pressure during ureteroscopy: in vivo experimental study in a live anesthetized pig. J Endourol. 33(9):725–729CrossRefPubMed
15.
go back to reference Rehman J, Monga M, Landman J et al (2003) Characterization of intrapelvic pressure during ureteropyeloscopy with ureteral access sheaths. Urology 61(4):713–718CrossRefPubMed Rehman J, Monga M, Landman J et al (2003) Characterization of intrapelvic pressure during ureteropyeloscopy with ureteral access sheaths. Urology 61(4):713–718CrossRefPubMed
16.
go back to reference Yoshida T, Inoue T, Abe T et al (2018) Evaluation of intrapelvic pressure when using small-sized ureteral access sheaths of ≤ 10/12Fr in an ex vivo porcine kidney model. J Endourol 32(12):1142–1147CrossRefPubMed Yoshida T, Inoue T, Abe T et al (2018) Evaluation of intrapelvic pressure when using small-sized ureteral access sheaths of ≤ 10/12Fr in an ex vivo porcine kidney model. J Endourol 32(12):1142–1147CrossRefPubMed
17.
go back to reference Caballero-Romeu JP, Galan-Llopis JA, Soria F et al (2008) Micro-ureteroscopy vs ureteroscopy: effects of miniaturization on renal vascularization and intrapelvic pressure [J]. World J Urol 36(5):811–817CrossRef Caballero-Romeu JP, Galan-Llopis JA, Soria F et al (2008) Micro-ureteroscopy vs ureteroscopy: effects of miniaturization on renal vascularization and intrapelvic pressure [J]. World J Urol 36(5):811–817CrossRef
Metadata
Title
Intrarenal pressure study using 7.5 French flexible ureteroscope with or without ureteral access sheath in an ex-vivo porcine kidney model
Authors
Zhenyuan Han
Baosen Wang
Xiaohui Liu
Tao Jing
WenSu Yue
Yuliang Wang
Dong Wang
Publication date
26-09-2023
Publisher
Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Published in
World Journal of Urology / Issue 11/2023
Print ISSN: 0724-4983
Electronic ISSN: 1433-8726
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-023-04598-3

Other articles of this Issue 11/2023

World Journal of Urology 11/2023 Go to the issue