Intrarenal Pressure and Flow Rate Profile Using LithoVue™ Elite: Impact of Different Irrigation Systems and Working Channel Instruments

Overview

Journal World J Urol

Specialty Urology

Date 2024 Jul 18

PMID 39026102

Authors

Lucas B Vergamini

Wilson R Molina

Willian Ito

Aaron Tverye

Quinnlyn Walcott

Holly E Du

Mihaela E Sardiu

Crystal Valadon

Daniel R Hanna

Donald Neff

David A Duchene

Bristol B Whiles

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Purpose: To report real-time IRP and FR while performing flexible ureteroscopy in porcine kidney model utilizing LithoVue™ Elite (Boston Scientific®) with different irrigation systems, including automated pumps.

Methods: Using an ex-vivo model of porcine kidney, IRPs were measured with LithoVue Elite. Ureteroscopic settings (US) were tested with all permutations of irrigation methods (IM), working channel occupant (WCO), and ureteral access sheaths (UAS). IMs included: Single Action Pumping System (SAPS™, Boston Scientific), Thermedx FluidSmart™ (Stryker®), and ENDOMAT™ (Karl Storz®). Pumps were tested at 50, 100, and 150 mmHg. WCOs included a 1.9Fr zero-tip basket, 200 µm, and 365 µm laser fibers. UASs utilized 11/13Fr and 12/14Fr 36 cm.

Results: 84 different US were tested (252 experiments). ENDOMAT had higher IRP but the same FR as Thermedx at the same US for 50 and 100 mmHg (p < 0.01). SAPS had higher IRP and FR than pumps in all US studies (p < 0.01). There was positive correlation between pressure set by the pump and both IRP and FR (rho > 0.9). As the diameter of the WCO increased, lower IRP and FR were observed with the pumps (p < 0.01). With SAPS, IRP was similar regardless of WCO, but FR was decreased with the increased diameter of WCO (p = 0.81 and p < 0.01, respectively). There was significantly higher IRP when using 11/13Fr UAS than 12/14Fr (p < 0.01).

Conclusion: IRP was higher with SAPS than automated pumps. ENDOMAT showed higher IRP than Thermedx when under 150 mmHg. IRP and FR increase with higher pump pressure and decrease with larger diameter WCO. Likewise, a larger UAS significantly reduced IRP.

References

Tokas T, Skolarikos A, Herrmann T, Nagele U . Pressure matters 2: intrarenal pressure ranges during upper-tract endourological procedures. World J Urol. 2018; 37(1):133-142. DOI: 10.1007/s00345-018-2379-3. View

Hong A, du Plessis J, Browne C, Jack G, Bolton D . Mechanism of urosepsis: relationship between intrarenal pressures and pyelovenous backflow. BJU Int. 2023; 132(5):512-519. DOI: 10.1111/bju.16095. View

Blew B, Dagnone A, Pace K, Honey R . Comparison of Peditrol irrigation device and common methods of irrigation. J Endourol. 2005; 19(5):562-5. DOI: 10.1089/end.2005.19.562. View

Fedrigon III D, Alshara L, Monga M . Comparison of automated irrigation systems using an in vitro ureteroscopy model. Int Braz J Urol. 2020; 46(3):390-397. PMC: 7088507. DOI: 10.1590/S1677-5538.IBJU.2019.0230. View

Chew B, Shalabi N, Herout R, Reicherz A, Wong K, Searles K . Intrarenal Pressure Measured Using a Novel Flexible Ureteroscope with Pressure Sensing Capabilities: A Study of the Effects of Ureteral Access Sheath, Irrigation, and Working Channel Accessories. J Endourol. 2023; 37(11):1200-1208. DOI: 10.1089/end.2022.0841. View

Rehman J, Monga M, Landman J, Lee D, Felfela T, Conradie M . Characterization of intrapelvic pressure during ureteropyeloscopy with ureteral access sheaths. Urology. 2003; 61(4):713-8. DOI: 10.1016/s0090-4295(02)02440-8. View

MacCraith E, Yap L, Elamin M, Patterson K, Brady C, Hennessey D . Evaluation of the Impact of Ureteroscope, Access Sheath, and Irrigation System Selection on Intrarenal Pressures in a Porcine Kidney Model. J Endourol. 2020; 35(4):512-517. DOI: 10.1089/end.2020.0838. View

Sierra A, Corrales M, Somani B, Traxer O . Laser Efficiency and Laser Safety: Holmium YAG vs. Thulium Fiber Laser. J Clin Med. 2023; 12(1). PMC: 9821183. DOI: 10.3390/jcm12010149. View

Croghan S, Cunnane E, OMeara S, Muheilan M, Cunnane C, Patterson K . In vivo ureteroscopic intrarenal pressures and clinical outcomes: a multi-institutional analysis of 120 consecutive patients. BJU Int. 2023; 132(5):531-540. DOI: 10.1111/bju.16169. View

10.

Jiang H, Yu Z, Chen L, Wang T, Liu Z, Liu J . Minimally Invasive Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy versus Retrograde Intrarenal Surgery for Upper Urinary Stones: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Biomed Res Int. 2017; 2017:2035851. PMC: 5434463. DOI: 10.1155/2017/2035851. View

11.

Farag M, Timm B, Davis N, Wong L, Bolton D, Jack G . Pressurized-Bag Irrigation Versus Hand-Operated Irrigation Pumps During Ureteroscopic Laser Lithotripsy: Comparison of Infectious Complications. J Endourol. 2020; 34(9):914-918. DOI: 10.1089/end.2020.0148. View

12.

Yoshida T, Inoue T, Abe T, Matsuda T . Evaluation of Intrapelvic Pressure When Using Small-Sized Ureteral Access Sheaths of ≤10/12F in an Ex Vivo Porcine Kidney Model. J Endourol. 2018; 32(12):1142-1147. DOI: 10.1089/end.2018.0501. View

13.

Proietti S, Dragos L, Somani B, Buttice S, Talso M, Emiliani E . Comparison of Maximum Pressure Developed by Irrigation Systems in a Kidney Model. J Endourol. 2017; 31(5):522-527. DOI: 10.1089/end.2017.0005. View

14.

Ng Y, Somani B, Dennison A, Kata S, Nabi G, Brown S . Irrigant flow and intrarenal pressure during flexible ureteroscopy: the effect of different access sheaths, working channel instruments, and hydrostatic pressure. J Endourol. 2010; 24(12):1915-20. DOI: 10.1089/end.2010.0188. View

15.

Doizi S, Uzan A, Keller E, De Coninck V, Kamkoum H, Barghouthy Y . Comparison of intrapelvic pressures during flexible ureteroscopy, mini-percutaneous nephrolithotomy, standard percutaneous nephrolithotomy, and endoscopic combined intrarenal surgery in a kidney model. World J Urol. 2020; 39(7):2709-2717. DOI: 10.1007/s00345-020-03450-2. View

16.

Sener T, Cloutier J, Villa L, Marson F, Buttice S, Doizi S . Can We Provide Low Intrarenal Pressures with Good Irrigation Flow by Decreasing the Size of Ureteral Access Sheaths?. J Endourol. 2015; 30(1):49-55. DOI: 10.1089/end.2015.0387. View