Tip bendable suction ureteral access sheath versus traditional sheath in retrograde intrarenal stone surgery: an international multicentre, randomized, parallel group, superiority study.

Randomized controlled trial Retrograde intrarenal stone surgery Suction Tip bendable Ureteral access sheath

Journal

EClinicalMedicine
ISSN: 2589-5370
Titre abrégé: EClinicalMedicine
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101733727

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
Aug 2024
Historique:
received: 25 03 2024
revised: 21 06 2024
accepted: 21 06 2024
medline: 29 7 2024
pubmed: 29 7 2024
entrez: 29 7 2024
Statut: epublish

Résumé

Retrograde intrarenal surgery (RIRS) is the main treatments for upper urinary tract stones. The Ureteral Access Sheath (UAS) serves as a supplementary tool, facilitating direct kidney access during RIRS. High quality of evidence comparing tip bendable suction ureteral access sheath (S-UAS) with traditional UAS in RIRS for the treatment of renal and ureteral stones is lacking. The purpose of the study is to compare the efficacy and safety of S-UAS with traditional UAS in RIRS for the treatment of renal or ureteral stones ≤30 mm. An international, multicenter, and superiority randomized controlled trial included 320 intention-to-treat patients across 8 medical centers in China, the Philippines, Malaysia and Turkey from August 2023 to February 2024. The inclusion criteria were patients ≥18 years old with renal or ureteral stones ≤30 mm. RIRS was performed using either S-UAS or traditional UAS. The primary outcome was the immediately stone-free rate (SFR). Secondary outcomes included SFR 3 months after operation, operating time, hospital stay, auxiliary procedures, complications (using the Clavien-Dindo grading system), and improvement in the Quality of Life (QoL) score. Differences between proportions [risk difference (RD)]/means [mean difference (MD)] and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were presented. This study is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT05952635. The S-UAS group demonstrated a significantly higher immediately SFR (81.3% versus 49.4%; RD 31.9%; 95% CI 22.5%-41.7%; p = 0.004) compared to the traditional UAS group, as determined by the one-side superiority test. Additionally, the S-UAS group exhibited a higher SFR at 3 months post-operation (87.5% versus 70.0%; RD 17.5%; 95% CI 8.7%-26.3%; p < 0.001), lower postoperative fever rate (RD -11.9%; 95% CI -18.7% to -4.9%; p < 0.001), reduced use of stone baskets (RD -70.6%; 95% CI -77.8% to -63.5%; p < 0.001), and better QoL improvement (MD 7.25; 95% CI 2.21-12.29; p = 0.005). No statistically significant differences were observed in operation time, hospital stay, or the need for second-stage RIRS. In RIRS for upper urinary tract stones ≤30 mm, S-UAS exhibited superior performance compared to traditional UAS, demonstrating higher SFR, reduced postoperative fever rate, and improved QoL outcomes. S-UAS emerges as a prudent and advantageous alternative to traditional UAS for RIRS. National Natural Science Foundation of China and Guangdong Province, and Zhejiang Medicine and Health Program.

Sections du résumé

Background UNASSIGNED
Retrograde intrarenal surgery (RIRS) is the main treatments for upper urinary tract stones. The Ureteral Access Sheath (UAS) serves as a supplementary tool, facilitating direct kidney access during RIRS. High quality of evidence comparing tip bendable suction ureteral access sheath (S-UAS) with traditional UAS in RIRS for the treatment of renal and ureteral stones is lacking. The purpose of the study is to compare the efficacy and safety of S-UAS with traditional UAS in RIRS for the treatment of renal or ureteral stones ≤30 mm.
Methods UNASSIGNED
An international, multicenter, and superiority randomized controlled trial included 320 intention-to-treat patients across 8 medical centers in China, the Philippines, Malaysia and Turkey from August 2023 to February 2024. The inclusion criteria were patients ≥18 years old with renal or ureteral stones ≤30 mm. RIRS was performed using either S-UAS or traditional UAS. The primary outcome was the immediately stone-free rate (SFR). Secondary outcomes included SFR 3 months after operation, operating time, hospital stay, auxiliary procedures, complications (using the Clavien-Dindo grading system), and improvement in the Quality of Life (QoL) score. Differences between proportions [risk difference (RD)]/means [mean difference (MD)] and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were presented. This study is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT05952635.
Findings UNASSIGNED
The S-UAS group demonstrated a significantly higher immediately SFR (81.3% versus 49.4%; RD 31.9%; 95% CI 22.5%-41.7%; p = 0.004) compared to the traditional UAS group, as determined by the one-side superiority test. Additionally, the S-UAS group exhibited a higher SFR at 3 months post-operation (87.5% versus 70.0%; RD 17.5%; 95% CI 8.7%-26.3%; p < 0.001), lower postoperative fever rate (RD -11.9%; 95% CI -18.7% to -4.9%; p < 0.001), reduced use of stone baskets (RD -70.6%; 95% CI -77.8% to -63.5%; p < 0.001), and better QoL improvement (MD 7.25; 95% CI 2.21-12.29; p = 0.005). No statistically significant differences were observed in operation time, hospital stay, or the need for second-stage RIRS.
Interpretation UNASSIGNED
In RIRS for upper urinary tract stones ≤30 mm, S-UAS exhibited superior performance compared to traditional UAS, demonstrating higher SFR, reduced postoperative fever rate, and improved QoL outcomes. S-UAS emerges as a prudent and advantageous alternative to traditional UAS for RIRS.
Funding UNASSIGNED
National Natural Science Foundation of China and Guangdong Province, and Zhejiang Medicine and Health Program.

Identifiants

pubmed: 39070176
doi: 10.1016/j.eclinm.2024.102724
pii: S2589-5370(24)00303-1
pmc: PMC11277316
doi:

Banques de données

ClinicalTrials.gov
['NCT05952635']

Types de publication

Journal Article

Langues

eng

Pagination

102724

Informations de copyright

© 2024 The Authors.

Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts

All authors met the ICMJE authorship criteria. All authors made substantial contributions to the manuscript submitted for publication, read and approved the manuscript, and have no commercial financial incentive with publishing the article. Guohua Zeng certifies that all conflicts of interest, including specific financial interests and relationships and affiliations relevant to the subject matter or materials discussed in the manuscript (eg, employment/affiliation, grants or funding, consultancies, honoraria, stock ownership or options, expert testimony, royalties, or patents filed, received, or pending), are the following: None.

Auteurs

Wei Zhu (W)

Department of Urology and Guangdong Key Laboratory of Urology, The First Affiliated Hospital of Guangzhou Medical University, Guangzhou, Guangdong, China.

Shusheng Liu (S)

Department of Urology and Guangdong Key Laboratory of Urology, The First Affiliated Hospital of Guangzhou Medical University, Guangzhou, Guangdong, China.

Jianwei Cao (J)

Department of Urology, Xinhua Hospital Affiliated to Shanghai Jiao Tong University, School of Medicine, Shanghai, China.

Hao Wang (H)

Department of Urology and Guangdong Key Laboratory of Urology, The First Affiliated Hospital of Guangzhou Medical University, Guangzhou, Guangdong, China.

Hui Liang (H)

Department of Urology, Xinchang County Hospital of Traditional Chinese Medicine, Shaoxing, Zhejiang, China.

Kehua Jiang (K)

Department of Urology, Guizhou Provincial People's Hospital, Guiyang, Guizhou, China.

Yu Cui (Y)

Department of Urology, Xiangya Hospital Central South University, Changsha, Hunan, China.

Chu Ann Chai (CA)

Urology Unit, Department of Surgery, University Malaya Medical Centre, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.

Emre Burak Sahinler (EB)

Department of Urology, Prof. Dr. Ilhan Varank Research and Training Hospital, Istanbul, Turkey.

Albert Aquino (A)

Department of Urology, Jose R. Reyes Memorial Medical Center, Manila, Philippines.

Giorgio Mazzon (G)

Institute of Urology, University College Hospitals of London, London, United Kingdom.

Wen Zhong (W)

Department of Urology and Guangdong Key Laboratory of Urology, The First Affiliated Hospital of Guangzhou Medical University, Guangzhou, Guangdong, China.

Zhijian Zhao (Z)

Department of Urology and Guangdong Key Laboratory of Urology, The First Affiliated Hospital of Guangzhou Medical University, Guangzhou, Guangdong, China.

Lin Zhang (L)

Department of Urology, Xinhua Hospital Affiliated to Shanghai Jiao Tong University, School of Medicine, Shanghai, China.

Jie Ding (J)

Department of Urology, Xinhua Hospital Affiliated to Shanghai Jiao Tong University, School of Medicine, Shanghai, China.

Qing Wang (Q)

Department of Urology, Guizhou Provincial People's Hospital, Guiyang, Guizhou, China.

Yizhou Wang (Y)

Department of Urology, Xiangya Hospital Central South University, Changsha, Hunan, China.

Kelven Weijing Chen (KW)

Department of Urology, National University Hospital, Singapore.

Yongda Liu (Y)

Department of Urology and Guangdong Key Laboratory of Urology, The First Affiliated Hospital of Guangzhou Medical University, Guangzhou, Guangdong, China.

Simon Choong (S)

Institute of Urology, University College Hospitals of London, London, United Kingdom.

Kemal Sarica (K)

Department of Urology, Prof. Dr. Ilhan Varank Research and Training Hospital, Istanbul, Turkey.

Guohua Zeng (G)

Department of Urology and Guangdong Key Laboratory of Urology, The First Affiliated Hospital of Guangzhou Medical University, Guangzhou, Guangdong, China.

Classifications MeSH