The dilemma of 12/14F ureteral access sheath (UAS) usage: a case control study.
Complications
Flexible ureteroscopy
Kidney stones
Ureteral access sheath
Urolithiasis
Journal
BMC urology
ISSN: 1471-2490
Titre abrégé: BMC Urol
Pays: England
ID NLM: 100968571
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
15 Jun 2022
15 Jun 2022
Historique:
received:
19
09
2021
accepted:
25
04
2022
entrez:
15
6
2022
pubmed:
16
6
2022
medline:
18
6
2022
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
The insertion of a ureteral access sheath (UAS) is a frequent procedure during flexible ureteroscopy (fURS) to facilitate kidney stone treatment. The aim of this study was to investigate the influence of 12/14 French (F) UAS on fURS outcomes. We performed a retrospective monocentric analysis of fURS procedures conducted at the Department of Urology (University Hospital Schleswig-Holstein, Lübeck, Germany) for kidney stone treatment via lithotripsy or basket stone retrieval between September 2013 and June 2017. Uni- and multivariate analyses were done with the help of RStudio (Version 1.0.136) software. In total, 283 consecutive fURS were analyzed. UAS was applied in 98 cases (34.63%). The insertion of UAS was preferred in cases with multiple kidney stones and larger median maximal stone diameter (p < 0.05). UAS usage correlated with elevated radiation exposure in seconds (94 vs. 61; p < 0.0001), prolonged operation time in minutes (99 vs. 66, p < 0.0001), length of hospital stay over 48 h (LOS, 22.49% vs. 10.81%; p = 0.015), more frequent postoperative systemic inflammatory response syndrome (SIRS, 13.27% vs. 4.32%; p = 0.013) and lower postoperative stone-free rates (60.20% vs. 78.92%; p = 0.0013). Moreover, we conducted uni- and multivariate subgroup analysis for cases with multiple kidney stones (≥ 2) and comparable stone burden; UAS was inserted in 48.3% of these cases (71/147). On multivariate logistic regression, UAS insertion was statistically associated with prolonged operation time in minutes (101 vs. 77; p = 0.004). No statistical differences regarding radiation exposure, stone-free rates, postoperative SIRS rates or LOS were noted between UAS and non-UAS patients with multiple kidney stones of similar size (p > 0.05). 12/14F UAS does not seem to improve overall outcomes in fURS for kidney stones. In patients with multiple kidney stones it may be associated with elevated operation time without a clear benefit in terms of improved stone-free status or reduced perioperative complication rate. Further prospective randomized studies to specify the indications for UAS usage are urgently needed.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
The insertion of a ureteral access sheath (UAS) is a frequent procedure during flexible ureteroscopy (fURS) to facilitate kidney stone treatment. The aim of this study was to investigate the influence of 12/14 French (F) UAS on fURS outcomes.
METHODS
METHODS
We performed a retrospective monocentric analysis of fURS procedures conducted at the Department of Urology (University Hospital Schleswig-Holstein, Lübeck, Germany) for kidney stone treatment via lithotripsy or basket stone retrieval between September 2013 and June 2017. Uni- and multivariate analyses were done with the help of RStudio (Version 1.0.136) software.
RESULTS
RESULTS
In total, 283 consecutive fURS were analyzed. UAS was applied in 98 cases (34.63%). The insertion of UAS was preferred in cases with multiple kidney stones and larger median maximal stone diameter (p < 0.05). UAS usage correlated with elevated radiation exposure in seconds (94 vs. 61; p < 0.0001), prolonged operation time in minutes (99 vs. 66, p < 0.0001), length of hospital stay over 48 h (LOS, 22.49% vs. 10.81%; p = 0.015), more frequent postoperative systemic inflammatory response syndrome (SIRS, 13.27% vs. 4.32%; p = 0.013) and lower postoperative stone-free rates (60.20% vs. 78.92%; p = 0.0013). Moreover, we conducted uni- and multivariate subgroup analysis for cases with multiple kidney stones (≥ 2) and comparable stone burden; UAS was inserted in 48.3% of these cases (71/147). On multivariate logistic regression, UAS insertion was statistically associated with prolonged operation time in minutes (101 vs. 77; p = 0.004). No statistical differences regarding radiation exposure, stone-free rates, postoperative SIRS rates or LOS were noted between UAS and non-UAS patients with multiple kidney stones of similar size (p > 0.05).
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
12/14F UAS does not seem to improve overall outcomes in fURS for kidney stones. In patients with multiple kidney stones it may be associated with elevated operation time without a clear benefit in terms of improved stone-free status or reduced perioperative complication rate. Further prospective randomized studies to specify the indications for UAS usage are urgently needed.
Identifiants
pubmed: 35705924
doi: 10.1186/s12894-022-01031-6
pii: 10.1186/s12894-022-01031-6
pmc: PMC9199145
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
84Informations de copyright
© 2022. The Author(s).
Références
J Endourol. 2008 Sep;22(9):2147-51
pubmed: 18811571
World J Urol. 2014 Feb;32(1):229-32
pubmed: 24166287
Urology. 2005 Aug;66(2):252-5
pubmed: 16040093
J Urol. 2001 Mar;165(3):789-93
pubmed: 11176469
Eur Urol. 2016 Mar;69(3):475-82
pubmed: 26344917
Urol Res. 2007 Apr;35(2):107-9
pubmed: 17393197
J Endourol. 2019 Sep;33(9):725-729
pubmed: 31266360
World J Urol. 2020 Aug;38(8):2035-2040
pubmed: 31659464
Urolithiasis. 2020 Jun;48(3):263-270
pubmed: 31372691
Cent European J Urol. 2015;68(4):434-8
pubmed: 26855796
J Urol. 2016 Oct;196(4):1153-60
pubmed: 27238616
Scand J Urol. 2016 Jun;50(3):216-9
pubmed: 27111193
BMC Urol. 2019 Jul 4;19(1):58
pubmed: 31272430
J Endourol. 2021 Apr;35(4):512-517
pubmed: 32967460
Ann Surg. 2004 Aug;240(2):205-13
pubmed: 15273542
Chest. 1992 Jun;101(6):1644-55
pubmed: 1303622
Urology. 2003 Apr;61(4):713-8
pubmed: 12670551
Urol Int. 2020;104(5-6):452-458
pubmed: 32097920
World J Urol. 2015 Dec;33(12):2137-44
pubmed: 25971204
J Endourol. 2014 Mar;28(3):286-90
pubmed: 24147776
PLoS One. 2018 Feb 28;13(2):e0193600
pubmed: 29489912
Urolithiasis. 2021 Dec;49(6):567-573
pubmed: 33847780
J Endourol. 2021 Sep;35(9):1340-1347
pubmed: 33827269
J Endourol. 2019 Sep;33(9):712-718
pubmed: 31161788