Asset Details
Do you wish to reserve the book?
Comparison of intrapelvic pressures during flexible ureteroscopy, mini-percutaneous nephrolithotomy, standard percutaneous nephrolithotomy, and endoscopic combined intrarenal surgery in a kidney model
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 intrapelvic pressures during flexible ureteroscopy, mini-percutaneous nephrolithotomy, standard percutaneous nephrolithotomy, and endoscopic combined intrarenal surgery in a kidney model
Do you wish to request the book?
Comparison of intrapelvic pressures during flexible ureteroscopy, mini-percutaneous nephrolithotomy, standard percutaneous nephrolithotomy, and endoscopic combined intrarenal surgery in a kidney model
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 intrapelvic pressures during flexible ureteroscopy, mini-percutaneous nephrolithotomy, standard percutaneous nephrolithotomy, and endoscopic combined intrarenal surgery in a kidney model
2021
Overview
PurposeTo compare intrapelvic pressure (IPP) levels achieved during f-URS, mini-PCNL, standard PCNL, and endoscopic combined intrarenal surgery in a kidney model.MethodsA silicone model simulating the complete urinary tract was used for all the experiments. We compared: a 9.5Fr f-URS, a 12Fr mini-nephroscope and a 26Fr nephroscope. The irrigation pressure was set at 40 and 193 cmH2O. We compared: f-URS-S ± ureteral access sheath (UAS, 10/12Fr, 11/13Fr, 12/14Fr) ± 273 μm laser fiber, Mini-PCNL with different sizes of operating sheath (15/16Fr, 16.5/17.5Fr, 21/22Fr) ± 365 μm laser fiber, Standard PCNL with an operating sheath of 30Fr ± Lithotripter LithoClast Master 11.4Fr.Resultsf-URS: IPP values ranged between 1.4 and 46.2 cmH2O. Factors reducing IPP were an irrigation pressure at 40 cmH2O, an occupied working channel, and the use of a UAS except with the 10/12Fr at 193 cmH2O. Mini-PCNL: IPP values ranged between 2.4 and 39.7 cmH2O. Factors reducing IPP were irrigation pressure at 40 cmH2O, a large operating sheath (> 15/16Fr). The occupation of the working channel did not affect the IPP at 40 cmH2O, while it decreased at 193 cmH2O.Standard PCNL: IPP values ranged between 1.4 and 7.3 cmH2O. Occupancy of the working channel did not affect IPP at 40 cmH2O, while it increased at 193 cmH2O.ConclusionWe recorded for the first time IPP values according to different endourological techniques and configurations. IPP never exceed 50 cmH2O irrespectively of the assessed technique/setup. The factors reducing IPP were a low irrigation pressure (40 cmH2O), the use of a UAS or a working sheath appropriate to the diameter of the endoscope, as well as the occupation of the working channel in the case of f-URS.
Publisher
Springer Nature B.V
Subject
We currently cannot retrieve any items related to this title. Kindly check back at a later time.