» Articles » PMID: 39382576

Intelligent Control of Pressure Based on Ureteral Access Sheaths: Renal Pelvic Pressure During Flexible Ureteroscope Perfusion at Different Sites

Overview
Journal Urolithiasis
Publisher Springer
Specialty Urology
Date 2024 Oct 9
PMID 39382576
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Objective: This study aimed to evaluate the accuracy and effectiveness of renal pelvic pressure (RPP) control during flexible ureteroscopic perfusion at various sites.

Methods: Flexible ureteroscopy for the intelligent control of RPP was based on a ureteral access sheath (UAS) that integrated pressure measurement and suction functions (with automatic adjustment). Eleven consecutive patients with indurating nephrostomy tubes were enrolled. The nephrostomy tube was connected to a disposable invasive blood pressure sensor. The RPP was zeroed after the pressure stabilized. The flow rate and control value were set at 100 ml/min and - 5 mmHg, respectively. An 8.5 Fr flexible ureteroscope was irrigated at the renal pelvis, as well as the upper, middle, and lower calyces of the kidney for 1 min.

Results: All 11 patients with upper urinary tract calculi underwent successful UAS placement. Pressures measured by the sheath and fistula during perfusion were - 5.07 ± 1.41 and - 4.89 ± 1.07 mmHg at the renal pelvis, -5.16 ± 1.36 and - 5.12 ± 1.32 mmHg at the upper calyces, -4.98 ± 0.87 and - 5.39 ± 1.01 mmHg at the middle calyces, as well as -4.95 ± 1.56 and - 5.64 ± 1.24 mmHg at the lower calyces, respectively. There were no significant differences in pressure between the sheath and fistula groups or in sheath and fistula pressures among parts. The RPP fluctuated; however, all values were within the safe limit of 20 mmHg.

Conclusion: The UAS-based pressure monitoring technology can accurately and reliably monitor and control RPP within a set range.

References
1.
Xu Y, Min Z, Wan S, Nie H, Duan G . Complications of retrograde intrarenal surgery classified by the modified Clavien grading system. Urolithiasis. 2017; 46(2):197-202. DOI: 10.1007/s00240-017-0961-6. View

2.
Berardinelli F, DE Francesco P, Marchioni M, Cera N, Proietti S, Hennessey D . Infective complications after retrograde intrarenal surgery: a new standardized classification system. Int Urol Nephrol. 2016; 48(11):1757-1762. DOI: 10.1007/s11255-016-1373-1. View

3.
Yahsi S, Tonyali S, Ceylan C, Yildiz K, Ozdal L . Intraparenchymal hematoma as a late complication of retrograde intrarenal surgery. Int Braz J Urol. 2016; 43(2):367-370. PMC: 5433377. DOI: 10.1590/S1677-5538.IBJU.2016.0121. View

4.
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

5.
Levy M, Artigas A, Phillips G, Rhodes A, Beale R, Osborn T . Outcomes of the Surviving Sepsis Campaign in intensive care units in the USA and Europe: a prospective cohort study. Lancet Infect Dis. 2012; 12(12):919-24. DOI: 10.1016/S1473-3099(12)70239-6. View