» Articles » PMID: 31720031

Endoscopic Treatment of Lower Pole Stones: is a Disposable Ureteroscope Preferable? Results of a Prospective Case-control Study

Overview
Specialty Urology
Date 2019 Nov 14
PMID 31720031
Citations 13
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Introduction: The best option for lower pole stone management is still under debate. With the recent incorporation of disposable ureteroscopes, discussion on this topic has been renewed. The aim of the present study was to compare the results obtained with flexible disposable ureteroscopes with those obtained using reusable ureteroscopes in the treatment of inferior calyx stones.

Material And Methods: A case-control study was carried out using data registered prospectively in a database at our center. The clinical results obtained in two groups of patients were analyzed. In the first group of patients, a reusable flexible fiber-optic ureteroscope (Cobra, Richard Wolf) was used, and in the second group, a disposable flexible ureteroscope was used (Uscope 3022, Pusen Medical). The variables analyzed included: operative time, fluoroscopy time, need for postprocedure ureteral catheter, stone-free rate (fragments <1 millimeter) and complications. The results were evaluated using a Student's t test, a Mann-Whitney test and a Fisher's test.

Results: There were 31 cases with disposable ureteroscopes and 30 cases with a reusable ureteroscope. Both groups were comparable in their demographic and clinical variables. The characteristics regarding length, width and angle of the infundibulum (measured by retrograde ureteropyelography) were also comparable. There were no differences in the clinical findings with respect to the stone-free rate, need for a ureteral catheter, complications or hospital stay. Significant differences were found in the average surgery time (56.1 vs. 77 minutes; P = 0.01) and in the fluoroscopy time (66.1 vs. 83.4 seconds; P = 0.02), both favoring the use of single use ureteroscopes.

Conclusions: In this study, disposable flexible ureteroscopes have been validated as an option that is in the least equivalent to reusable ureteroscopes based on clinical results. The shorter surgical and fluoroscopy durations are possible advantages considering the high costs associated with time spent in the operating room and the need to reduce ionizing radiation.

Citing Articles

Factors predicting stone-free rates after retrograde intrarenal surgery for lower pole kidney stones A single-center, retrospective analysis.

Boudreau R, Fathy M, Hodhod A, Siddiqui R, Alaradi H, Alhelal S Can Urol Assoc J. 2024; 18(12):399-404.

PMID: 39037506 PMC: 11623325. DOI: 10.5489/cuaj.8807.


Clinical comparative study of single-use and reusable digital flexible ureteroscopy for the treatment of lower pole stones: a retrospective case-controlled study.

Jing Q, Liu F, Yuan X, Zhang X, Cao X BMC Urol. 2024; 24(1):149.

PMID: 39026274 PMC: 11256421. DOI: 10.1186/s12894-024-01541-5.


Work-Related Musculoskeletal Injury Rates, Risk Factors, and Ergonomics in Different Endoscopic Specialties: A Review.

Bessone V, Roppenecker D, Adamsen S Healthcare (Basel). 2024; 12(9).

PMID: 38727442 PMC: 11083686. DOI: 10.3390/healthcare12090885.


Single-Use Flexible Ureteroscopes: How Difficult Is It Today to Stay Up to Date? A Pictorial Review of Instruments Available in Europe in 2023.

Vaccaro C, Lorusso V, Palmisano F, Rosso M, Nicola M, Granata A J Clin Med. 2023; 12(24).

PMID: 38137717 PMC: 10743947. DOI: 10.3390/jcm12247648.


Single-use flexible ureteroscope provides an alternative treatment for upper urinary calculi: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Zhang F, Xu J, Liang H Medicine (Baltimore). 2023; 102(36):e34829.

PMID: 37682159 PMC: 10489268. DOI: 10.1097/MD.0000000000034829.


References
1.
Pace K, Tariq N, Dyer S, Weir M, Honey R . Mechanical percussion, inversion and diuresis for residual lower pole fragments after shock wave lithotripsy: a prospective, single blind, randomized controlled trial. J Urol. 2001; 166(6):2065-71. View

2.
Buttice S, Sener T, Netsch C, Emiliani E, Pappalardo R, Magno C . LithoVue™: A new single-use digital flexible ureteroscope. Cent European J Urol. 2016; 69(3):302-305. PMC: 5057057. DOI: 10.5173/ceju.2016.872. View

3.
Legemate J, Kamphuis G, Freund J, Baard J, Zanetti S, Catellani M . Durability of Flexible Ureteroscopes: A Prospective Evaluation of Longevity, the Factors that Affect it, and Damage Mechanisms. Eur Urol Focus. 2018; 5(6):1105-1111. DOI: 10.1016/j.euf.2018.03.001. View

4.
Albala D, Assimos D, Clayman R, Denstedt J, Grasso M, Kahn R . Lower pole I: a prospective randomized trial of extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy and percutaneous nephrostolithotomy for lower pole nephrolithiasis-initial results. J Urol. 2001; 166(6):2072-80. DOI: 10.1016/s0022-5347(05)65508-5. View

5.
Donaldson J, Lardas M, Scrimgeour D, Stewart F, MacLennan S, Lam T . Systematic review and meta-analysis of the clinical effectiveness of shock wave lithotripsy, retrograde intrarenal surgery, and percutaneous nephrolithotomy for lower-pole renal stones. Eur Urol. 2014; 67(4):612-6. DOI: 10.1016/j.eururo.2014.09.054. View