» Articles » PMID: 21187569

Flexible Ureterorenoscopy (URS): Technique and Results

Overview
Journal Arch Esp Urol
Specialty Urology
Date 2010 Dec 29
PMID 21187569
Citations 9
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Objectives: This paper has two main objectives: First, to expose the URS technique used in our Department because there are important differences with respect to others centres published, explaining same aspect that can benefit to the better development of the technique. Second, we present the results of a series of 100 cases. Flexible ureterorenoscopy (Flex URS) has been little used to date, mainly because of the technical difficulties created by the deficient quality of the instruments used, such as ureteroscopes offering scant visibility, poor illumination, a small working channel, deficient quality of the forceps and baskets, etc.

Methods: We present our recent series of flexible URS for the treatment of renal lithiasis. We performes a retrospective analysis of this treatment corresponding to the period between January 2007 and March 2010. In this period we have treated 100 patients. The medium size of the stone treated is 1.5cm (0.5-6cm) and we used ureteroscopic protector sheath in all cases. The lithotripter system used in all cases was Ho:YAG Laser with 200 and 365 micras fibers

Results: The stone-free rate (SFR) in the immediate postoperative period was 77% (77/100 patients). Residual stones, defined as stone fragments visualized in the operating room via fluoroscopy and directly with the flexible ureteroscope. Three months after surgery, the SFR was 92.7% (89/96 patients) confirmed by intravenous urography. Regarding complications, we had 5 patients with ureteral lesions during protector sheath pass and 9 patients that presented at the emergency room with pain secondary to the double J catheter.

Conclusions: Flexible URS for of renal lithiasis can be defended in stones measuring up to 2 cm in diameter, based on our treatment algorithm.

Citing Articles

Evaluation of mini-PCNL and RIRS for renal stones 1-2 cm in an economically challenged setting: A prospective cohort study.

Mahmood S, Ahmed C, Tawfeeq H, Bapir R, Fakhralddin S, Abdulla B Ann Med Surg (Lond). 2022; 81:104235.

PMID: 36147078 PMC: 9486407. DOI: 10.1016/j.amsu.2022.104235.


External validation of the T.O.HO. score as predictor of success after retrograde intrarenal surgery.

Senel S, Kasap Y, Kizilkan Y, Tastemur S, Ozden C BMC Urol. 2022; 22(1):68.

PMID: 35462554 PMC: 9036695. DOI: 10.1186/s12894-022-01018-3.


Sheathless and fluoroscopy-free retrograde intrarenal surgery: An attractive way of renal stone management in high-volume stone centers.

Mahmood S, Toffeq H, Fakhralddin S Asian J Urol. 2020; 7(3):309-317.

PMID: 32742931 PMC: 7385507. DOI: 10.1016/j.ajur.2019.07.003.


Small renal pelvis stones: Shock wave lithotripsy or flexible ureteroscopy? A match-pair analysis.

Gurbuz Z, Sener N, Vuruskan E, Deniz M, Gurlen G, Ortoglu F Turk J Urol. 2018; 45(3):202-205.

PMID: 30201080 PMC: 6469722. DOI: 10.5152/tud.2018.70094.


Single-use versus reusable ureterorenoscopes for retrograde intrarenal surgery (RIRS): systematic comparative analysis of physical and optical properties in three different devices.

Deininger S, Haberstock L, Kruck S, Neumann E, Anselmo da Costa I, Todenhofer T World J Urol. 2018; 36(12):2059-2063.

PMID: 29869701 DOI: 10.1007/s00345-018-2365-9.