Asset Details
Do you wish to reserve the book?
Comparison of suctioning and traditional ureteral access sheath during flexible ureteroscopy in the treatment of renal stones
Hey, we have placed the reservation for you!
By the way, why not check out events that you can attend while you pick your title.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place the reservation. Kindly try again later.
Are you sure you want to remove the book from the shelf?
Comparison of suctioning and traditional ureteral access sheath during flexible ureteroscopy in the treatment of renal stones
Do you wish to request the book?
Comparison of suctioning and traditional ureteral access sheath during flexible ureteroscopy in the treatment of renal stones
Please be aware that the book you have requested cannot be checked out. If you would like to checkout this book, you can reserve another copy
We have requested the book for you!
Your request is successful and it will be processed during the Library working hours. Please check the status of your request in My Requests.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place your request. Kindly try again later.
Journal Article
Comparison of suctioning and traditional ureteral access sheath during flexible ureteroscopy in the treatment of renal stones
2019
Overview
PurposeTo compare the efficiency and safety of suctioning ureteral access sheath (UAS) and traditional UAS during flexible ureteroscopy (FURS) for treatment of renal stones.MethodsBetween January 2015 and December 2017, 165 patients who had renal stones successfully underwent FURS with suctioning UAS created by connecting a channel on the tail of the suctioning UAS to a vacuum device. The outcomes of these patients were compared with those of 165 patients undergoing FURS with traditional UAS using a 1:1 scenario matched-pair analysis. The matching parameters were age, gender and stone burden.ResultsThe baseline characteristics were homogeneous between the two groups. The suctioning UAS group had significantly higher SFR one day postoperatively (82.4% vs. 71.5%; P = 0.02), but SFR 1 month postoperatively was comparable in the two groups (P = 0.13). The incidence of overall complications was significantly higher in the traditional UAS group (24.8% vs 11.5%; P < 0.001). Regarding individual complications, the traditional UAS group was associated with a significantly higher incidence of fever (13.9% vs 5.5%; P = 0.009) and urosepsis requiring only additional antibiotics (6.7% vs 1.8%; P = 0.029). No significant difference was noted in the incidence of septic shock, hematuria, steinstrasse or ureteral stricture. The suctioning UAS group had significantly shorter operative time (49.7 + 16.3 min vs. 57.0 ± 14.0 min; P < 0.001).ConclusionsCompared to traditional UAS during FURS for treating renal stones, suctioning UAS had the advantages of higher SFR 1 day postoperatively, a lower incidence of infectious complications and a shorter operative time. Further well-designed studies are required to confirm the results.
