SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Journal of Urological Surgery / 2022 / Cilt: 9 - Sayı: 2

Is Retrograde Intrarenal Surgery with Semi-rigid Ureterorenoscope Feasible for Isolated Renal Pelvic Stones?

Erdinç DİNÇER
Bilal ERYILDIRIM
Kemal SARICA
Fatih TARHAN
Burcu HANCI SEVİNÇ
Pages
110–116
Publication Date
2022-10-18
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

The overall success rate in group 1 and group 2 was 93.9% and 63.6%, respectively (p

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Objective: We compared the success and complication rates of retrograde intrarenal surgery (RIRS) performed with semi-rigid ureterorenoscopy (srURS) or flexible ureterorenoscopy (fURS) for isolated renal pelvic stones.
📊
Key Findings & Data:Materials and Methods: A total of 247 patients who underwent RIRS with fURS (n=179; group 1) or srURS (n=68; group 2) were included in this study.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:The overall success rate in group 1 and group 2 was 93.9% and 63.6%, respectively (p
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Abstract

Objective: We compared the success and complication rates of retrograde intrarenal surgery (RIRS) performed with semi-rigid ureterorenoscopy (srURS) or flexible ureterorenoscopy (fURS) for isolated renal pelvic stones. Materials and Methods: A total of 247 patients who underwent RIRS with fURS (n=179; group 1) or srURS (n=68; group 2) were included in this study. Various factors related to patients, stones and surgical procedures were evaluated retrospectively. Results: There was no difference between the patient groups according to mean age (49.12±1.10 years vs 49.59±1.60 years, p=0.745), gender distribution (p=0.152), mean hounsfield unit values (941±31.41 vs 1036±44.47 p=0.077), and mean hospitalization time (3.57±0.19 days vs 4.59±0.57, p=0.224). In group 1, the mean stone size (14.5±0.73 mm vs 15.5±0.62 mm, p=0.019) was statistically lower and the operative time (79.73±3.38 min vs 70.65±8.61, p=0.041) was statistically higher than those of group 2. The overall success rate in group 1 and group 2 was 93.9% and 63.6%, respectively (p

🔖

Cite This Article

DİNÇER, E., ERYILDIRIM, B., SARICA, K., TARHAN, F., SEVİNÇ, B. H. (2022). Is Retrograde Intrarenal Surgery with Semi-rigid Ureterorenoscope Feasible for Isolated Renal Pelvic Stones?. Journal of Urological Surgery, Cilt: 9 - Sayı: 2, 110–116. https://ajindex.com/articles/568591

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (12)

  1. Betschart P, Zumstein V, Jichlinski P, Herrmann TRW, Knoll T, Engeler DS, Müllhaupt G, Schmid HP, Abt D. Spoilt for Choice: A Survey of Current Practices of Surgical Urinary Stone Treatment and Adherence to EvidenceBased Guidelines among Swiss Urologists. Urol Int 2019;103:357-363
  2. Johnson GB, Portela D, Grasso M. Advanced ureteroscopy: wireless and sheathless. J Endourol 2006;20:552-555
  3. 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;32:1142-1147
  4. Türk C, Neisius A, Petrik A, Seitz C, Skolarikos A, Thomas K, Gambaro G, Davis NF, Donaldson JF, Lombardo R, Tzelves L. EAU Guidelines: Urolithiasis.
  5. Assimos D, Krambeck A, Miller NL, Monga M, Murad MH, Nelson CP, Pace KT, Pais VM Jr, Pearle MS, Preminger GM, Razvi H, Shah O, Matlaga BR. Surgical management of stones: American Urological Association/Endourological Society Guideline, part I. J Urol 2016;196:1153-1560
  6. Traxer O, Thomas A. Prospective evaluation and classification of ureteral wall injuries resulting from insertion of a ureteral access sheath during retrograde intrarenal surgery. J Urol 2013;189:580-584
  7. Kramolowsky E, McDowell Z, Moore B, Booth B, Wood N. Cost Analysis of Flexible Ureteroscope Repairs: Evaluation of 655 Procedures in a Community-Based Practice. J Endourol 2016;30:254-256
  8. Talso M, Goumas IK, Kamphuis GM, Dragos L, Tefik T, Traxer O, Somani BK. Reusable flexible ureterorenoscopes are more cost-effective than singleuse scopes: results of a systematic review from PETRA Uro-group. Transl Androl Urol 2019;8(Suppl 4):S418-S425
  9. Tokas T, Skolarikos A, Herrmann TRW, Nagele U; Training and Research in Urological Surgery and Technology (T.R.U.S.T.)-Group. Pressure matters 2: intrarenal pressure ranges during upper-tract endourological procedures. World J Urol 2019;37:133-142
  10. Süer E, Gülpinar Ö, Özcan C, Göğüş Ç, Kerimov S, Şafak M. Predictive factors for flexible ureterorenoscopy requirement after rigid ureterorenoscopy in cases with renal pelvic stones sized 1 to 2 cm. Korean J Urol 2015;56:138- 142
  11. Atis G, Gurbuz C, Arikan O, Canat L, Kilic M, Caskurlu T. Ureteroscopic management with laser lithotripsy of renal pelvic stones. J Endourol 2012;26:983-987
  12. Dindo D, Demartines N, Clavien PA. Classification of surgical complications: a new proposal with evaluation in a cohort