Top

Published in:

01-09-2021 | Urolithiasis | Original Article

Efficiency of retrograde intrarenal surgery in lower pole stones: disposable flexible ureterorenoscope or reusable flexible ureterorenoscope?

Authors: Yunus Emre Göger, Mehmet Serkan Özkent, Muzaffer Tansel Kılınç, Hakan Hakkı Taşkapu, Esra Göger, Arif Aydın, Mehmet Giray Sönmez, Giray Karalezli

Published in: World Journal of Urology | Issue 9/2021

Abstract

Purpose

The primary aim of this study to comparison of reusable and disposable flexible ureterorenoscope (fURS) efficiency in lower pole renal stone disease management. In addition, the secondary goal of this study was to evaluate the factors affecting stone-free rates (SFR) in lower pole stones.

Materials and methods

A prospective case–control study utilizing data from 122 consecutive ureteroscopic cases. The patients were divided into two groups according to the ureterorenoscope employed in the surgical intervention as disposable fURS (Group1, n:52) and reusable fURS (Group 2, n:70). Demographic characteristics, stone size, infundibulopelvic angle (IPA), SFR, hospitalization time, intraoperative complication rate (CR), operative time, preoperative or postoperative JJ stenting, and postoperative CR were analyzed.

Results

There was no statistical difference between the demographic and renal stone-related data between the groups. Likewise, no difference is observed in term of intraoperative and postoperative outcomes such as fluoroscopy time, CR, and hospitalization time between the groups. Although SFR was higher in the disposable fURS group, there was no difference statistically. However, the operative time was longer in reusable fURS Group (47.02 ± 9.91 min in Group 1, and it was 57.97 ± 14.28 in Group 2) (p: 0.001). The multivariate regression analysis result to evaluate the factors of effect to operative time; the use of disposable fURS was associated with a 10.95-min decrease in procedure duration (p < 0.001).

Conclusions

Disposable fURS and reusable fURS have similar clinical efficiency and complication rates in the treatment of lower calyceal stones with RIRS. Nevertheless, disposable fURS is a useful treatment option for increased stone volume due to the advantages such as shorter operative time.

Available only for authorised users

Türk C, Petřík A, Sarica K, Seitz C, Skolarikos A, Straub M et al (2016) EAU guidelines on interventional treatment for urolithiasis. EurUrol 69(3):475–482

Doizi S, Traxer O (2018) Flexible ureteroscopy: technique, tips and tricks. Urolithiasis 46(1):47–58CrossRef

Elbahnasy AM, Clayman RV, Shalhav AL, Hoenig DM, Chandhoke P, Lingeman JE et al (1998) Lower-pole caliceal stone clearance after shockwave lithotripsy, percutaneous nephrolithotomy, and flexible ureteroscopy: impact of radiographic spatial anatomy. J Endourol 12(2):113–119CrossRef

Fan J, Zhang T, Zhu W, Gurioli A, Ketegwe IR, Zeng G (2019) The role of super-mini percutaneous nephrolithotomy (SMP) in the treatment of symptomatic lower pole renal stones (LPSs) after the failure of shockwave lithotripsy (SWL) or retrograde intrarenal surgery (RIRS). Urolithiasis 47(3):297–301CrossRef

Karim SS, Hanna L, Geraghty R, Somani BK (2019) Role of pelvicalyceal anatomy in the outcomes of retrograde intrarenal surgery (RIRS) for lower pole stones: outcomes with a systematic review of literature. Urolithiasis 48(3):263–270

Salvadó JA, Cabello JM, Moreno S, Cabello R, Olivares R, Velasco A (2019) Endoscopic treatment of lower pole stones: is a disposable ureteroscope preferable? Results of a prospective case-control study. Cent Eur J Urol 72(3):280

Davis N, Quinlan M, Browne C, Bhatt N, Manecksha RP, D’Arcy F et al (2018) Single-use flexible ureteropyeloscopy: a systematic review. World J Urol 36(4):529–536CrossRef

Mager R, Kurosch M, Höfner T, Frees S, Haferkamp A, Neisius A (2018) Clinical outcomes and costs of reusable and single-use flexible ureterorenoscopes: a prospective cohort study. Urolithiasis 46(6):587–593CrossRef

Ozimek T, Schneider MH, Hupe MC, Wiessmeyer JR, Cordes J, Chlosta PL et al (2017) Retrospective cost analysis of a single-center reusable flexible ureterorenoscopy program: a comparative cost simulation of disposable fURS as an alternative. J Endourol 31(12):1226–1230CrossRef

10.

Doizi S, Kamphuis G, Giusti G, Andreassen KH, Knoll T, Osther PJ et al (2017) First clinical evaluation of a new single-use flexible ureteroscope (LithoVueTM): a European prospective multicentric feasibility study. World J Urol 35(5):809–818CrossRef

11.

Dindo D, Demartines N, Clavien P-A (2004) Classification of surgical complications: a new proposal with evaluation in a cohort of 6336 patients and results of a survey. Ann Surg 240(2):205CrossRef

12.

Donaldson JF, Lardas M, Scrimgeour D, Stewart F, MacLennan S, Lam TB et al (2015) Systematic review and meta-analysis of the clinical effectiveness of shock wave lithotripsy, retrograde intrarenal surgery, and percutaneous nephrolithotomy for lower-pole renal stones. EurUrol 67(4):612–616

13.

Junbo L, Yugen L, Guo J, Jing H, Ruichao Y, Tao W (2019) Retrograde intrarenal surgery vs. percutaneous nephrolithotomy vs. extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy for lower pole renal stones 10–20 mm: a meta-analysis and systematic review. Urol J. 16(2):97–106PubMed

14.

Singh BP, Prakash J, Sankhwar SN, Dhakad U, Sankhwar PL, Goel A et al (2014) Retrograde intrarenal surgery vs extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy for intermediate size inferior pole calculi: a prospective assessment of objective and subjective outcomes. Urology 83(5):1016–1022CrossRef

15.

Jessen JP, Honeck P, Knoll T, Wendt-Nordahl G (2014) Flexible ureterorenoscopy for lower pole stones: influence of the collecting system’s anatomy. J Endourol 28(2):146–151CrossRef

16.

Knudsen B, Miyaoka R, Shah K, Holden T, Turk TM, Pedro RN et al (2010) Durability of the next-generation flexible fiberopticureteroscopes: a randomized prospective multi-institutional clinical trial. Urology 75(3):534–538CrossRef

17.

Somani BK, Al-Qahtani SM, de Medina SDG, Traxer O (2013) Outcomes of flexible ureterorenoscopy and laser fragmentation for renal stones: comparison between digital and conventional ureteroscope. Urology 82(5):1017–1019CrossRef

18.

Tosoian JJ, Ludwig W, Sopko N, Mullins JK, Matlaga BR (2015) The effect of repair costs on the profitability of a ureteroscopy program. J Endourol 29(4):406–409CrossRef

19.

Legemate JD, Kamphuis GM, Freund JE, Baard J, Zanetti SP, Catellani M et al (2019) Durability of flexible ureteroscopes: a prospective evaluation of longevity, the factors that affect it, and damage mechanisms. Euro Urol focus 5(6):1105–1111CrossRef

20.

Usawachintachit M, Isaacson DS, Taguchi K, Tzou DT, Hsi RS, Sherer BA et al (2017) A prospective case–control study comparing LithoVue, a single-use, flexible disposable ureteroscope, with flexible, reusable fiber-optic ureteroscopes. J Endourol 31(5):468–475CrossRef

21.

Martin CJ, McAdams SB, Abdul-Muhsin H, Lim VM, Nunez-Nateras R, Tyson MD et al (2017) The economic implications of a reusable flexible digital ureteroscope: a cost-benefit analysis. J Urol 197(3):730–735CrossRef

22.

Salvadó JA, Olivares R, Cabello JM, Cabello R, Moreno S, Pfeifer J et al (2018) Retrograde intrarenal surgery using the single–use flexible ureteroscopeUscope 3022 (PusenTM): evaluation of clinical results. Cent Eur J Urol 71(2):202

23.

Deininger S, Haberstock L, Kruck S, Neumann E, da Costa IA, Todenhöfer T et al (2018) Single-use versus reusable ureterorenoscopes for retrograde intrarenal surgery (RIRS): systematic comparative analysis of physical and optical properties in three different devices. World J Urol 36(12):2059–2063CrossRef

24.

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):580–584CrossRef

25.

Donaldson JF, Ruhayel Y, Skolarikos A, MacLennan S, Yuan Y, Shepherd R et al (2019) Treatment of bladder stones in adults and children: a systematic review and meta-analysis on behalf of the European Association of Urology Urolithiasis Guideline Panel. EurUrol 76(3):352–367

26.

Miernik A, Wilhelm K, Ardelt PU, Adams F, Kuehhas FE, Schoenthaler M (2012) Standardized flexible ureteroscopic technique to improve stone-free rates. Urology 80(6):1198–1202CrossRef

27.

Lildal SK, Sørensen FB, Andreassen KH, Christiansen FE, Jung H, Pedersen MR et al (2017) Histopathological correlations to ureteral lesions visualized during ureteroscopy. World J Urol 35(10):1489–1496CrossRef

28.

De Coninck V, Keller EX, Rodríguez-Monsalve M, Audouin M, Doizi S, Traxer O (2018) Systematic review of ureteral access sheaths: facts and myths. BJU Int 122(6):959–969CrossRef

29.

Carlos EC, Li J, Young BJ, Radvak D, Wollin DA, Winship BB et al (2019) Let’s get to the point: comparing insertion characteristics and scope damage of flat-tip and ball-tip holmium laser fibers. J Endourol 33(1):22–26CrossRef

30.

Enikeev D, Shariat SF, Taratkin M, Glybochko P (2020) The changing role of lasers in urologic surgery. CurrOpinUrol 30(1):24–29

31.

Dymov A, Rapoport L, Enikeev D, Tsarichenko D, Sorokin N, Proskura A et al (2019) Prospective clinical study on superpulse thulium fiber laser: Initial analysis of optimal laser settings. EurUrolSuppl 18(1):e500

32.

Aldoukhi AH, Black KM, Hall TL, Roberts WW, Ghani KR (2020) Frequency threshold for ablation during holmium laser lithotripsy: how high can you go? J Endourol 34(10):1075–1081

Title: Efficiency of retrograde intrarenal surgery in lower pole stones: disposable flexible ureterorenoscope or reusable flexible ureterorenoscope?
Authors: Yunus Emre Göger
Mehmet Serkan Özkent
Muzaffer Tansel Kılınç
Hakan Hakkı Taşkapu
Esra Göger
Arif Aydın
Mehmet Giray Sönmez
Giray Karalezli
Publication date: 01-09-2021
Publisher: Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Keyword: Urolithiasis
Published in: World Journal of Urology / Issue 9/2021
Print ISSN: 0724-4983
Electronic ISSN: 1433-8726
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-021-03656-y

At a glance: The STEP trials

Springer Medicine

Efficiency of retrograde intrarenal surgery in lower pole stones: disposable flexible ureterorenoscope or reusable flexible ureterorenoscope?

Abstract

Purpose

Materials and methods

Results

Conclusions

At a glance: The STEP trials

Springer Medicine

Abstract

Purpose

Materials and methods

Results

Conclusions

Please log in to get access to this content

Other articles of this Issue 9/2021

Simplified biplanar (0–90°) fluoroscopic puncture technique for percutaneous nephrolithotomy: the learning curve

Dorsolateral inner preputial graft urethroplasty for anterior urethral strictures: long-term outcomes from a single tertiary care centre

Prognostic significance of total plasma cell-free DNA level and androgen receptor amplification in castration-resistant prostate cancer

Association of patients’ sex with treatment outcomes after intravesical bacillus Calmette–Guérin immunotherapy for T1G3/HG bladder cancer

The prognostic significance of lactate dehydrogenase levels in seminoma patients with advanced disease: an analysis by the Global Germ Cell Tumor Collaborative Group (G3)

The future of urology: nonagenarians admitted to a urological ward