Ureteral access sheath or percutaneous nephrostomy during flexible ureteroscopy: which is better?

IF 2 2区 医学 Q2 UROLOGY & NEPHROLOGY
Mohamed Abdelrahman Alhefnawy, Moaz Fathy Ismail Abdelrahman, Hosam Abdel-Fattah Abo-Elnasr, Helmy Ahmed Eldib
{"title":"Ureteral access sheath or percutaneous nephrostomy during flexible ureteroscopy: which is better?","authors":"Mohamed Abdelrahman Alhefnawy, Moaz Fathy Ismail Abdelrahman, Hosam Abdel-Fattah Abo-Elnasr, Helmy Ahmed Eldib","doi":"10.1007/s00240-024-01683-z","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Studies in literature discussed the drawbacks of the ureteral access sheath use in flexible ureteroscopy and in the same time mentioned the benefits of ureteral access sheath in decreasing the incidence of urosepsis and better stone free rate. In the current study we aim to compare between percutaneous nephrostomy tube (PCN) insertion before flexible ureteroscopy and conventional ureteral access sheath (UAS) flexible ureteroscopy in terms of safety, efficacy and perioperative outcomes. In all, 100 Patients aged 20 to 67 years with upper ureteric stones and mild hydronephrosis or renal pelvic stones less than 20 mm with mild hydronephrosis were randomized into 2 groups; patients undergoing PCN insertion before flexible ureteroscopy, and patients undergoing the conventional UAS flexible ureteroscopy. Patients with active urinary tract infection, patients with urinary diversions or malformations and patients with uncontrolled coagulable status were excluded from the study. Perioperative data were recorded. This study was conducted on 50 PCN group and 50 UAS group. Age varied from 20.0 to 67.0 years. Males consisted more than half of study groups, 52% of PCN group and 66% of UAS group. Weak significant difference was found in need for ureteral pre-operative stenting between groups (8% with PCN vs. 22% with UAS, p 0.04995). There was no significant difference between two groups in intra-operative complications (mucosal injury, failed operation, perforation, false passage and conversion to other procedure), but there was significant difference in bleeding between the groups (6% with PCN vs. 22% with UAS, p = 0.021). There was no significant difference between two groups in post-operative complications (infection, fever, pain, hematuria, other complications, stone free rate, readmission and stent duration), but there was significant decrease in operative time (48.85 ± 13.861 in PCN group versus 56.82 ± 14.61 in UAS group, p = 0.0003). We conclude that PCN insertion before flexible ureteroscopy provides a safe technique with comparable outcomes to UAS use.</p>","PeriodicalId":23411,"journal":{"name":"Urolithiasis","volume":"53 1","pages":"18"},"PeriodicalIF":2.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11698769/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Urolithiasis","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s00240-024-01683-z","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"UROLOGY & NEPHROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Studies in literature discussed the drawbacks of the ureteral access sheath use in flexible ureteroscopy and in the same time mentioned the benefits of ureteral access sheath in decreasing the incidence of urosepsis and better stone free rate. In the current study we aim to compare between percutaneous nephrostomy tube (PCN) insertion before flexible ureteroscopy and conventional ureteral access sheath (UAS) flexible ureteroscopy in terms of safety, efficacy and perioperative outcomes. In all, 100 Patients aged 20 to 67 years with upper ureteric stones and mild hydronephrosis or renal pelvic stones less than 20 mm with mild hydronephrosis were randomized into 2 groups; patients undergoing PCN insertion before flexible ureteroscopy, and patients undergoing the conventional UAS flexible ureteroscopy. Patients with active urinary tract infection, patients with urinary diversions or malformations and patients with uncontrolled coagulable status were excluded from the study. Perioperative data were recorded. This study was conducted on 50 PCN group and 50 UAS group. Age varied from 20.0 to 67.0 years. Males consisted more than half of study groups, 52% of PCN group and 66% of UAS group. Weak significant difference was found in need for ureteral pre-operative stenting between groups (8% with PCN vs. 22% with UAS, p 0.04995). There was no significant difference between two groups in intra-operative complications (mucosal injury, failed operation, perforation, false passage and conversion to other procedure), but there was significant difference in bleeding between the groups (6% with PCN vs. 22% with UAS, p = 0.021). There was no significant difference between two groups in post-operative complications (infection, fever, pain, hematuria, other complications, stone free rate, readmission and stent duration), but there was significant decrease in operative time (48.85 ± 13.861 in PCN group versus 56.82 ± 14.61 in UAS group, p = 0.0003). We conclude that PCN insertion before flexible ureteroscopy provides a safe technique with comparable outcomes to UAS use.

输尿管软腔镜下输尿管鞘或经皮肾造口术:哪个更好?
文献研究讨论了输尿管导管鞘在输尿管软镜中使用的缺点,同时也提到输尿管导管鞘在降低尿脓毒症发生率和提高结石清除率方面的益处。在本研究中,我们旨在比较经皮肾造瘘管(PCN)置入输尿管软腔镜与常规输尿管通路鞘(UAS)输尿管软腔镜的安全性、有效性和围手术期结果。100例20 ~ 67岁输尿管上段结石合并轻度肾盂积水或肾盂结石小于20 mm合并轻度肾盂积水患者随机分为两组;输尿管软镜检查前行PCN插入的患者和常规UAS输尿管软镜检查的患者。排除活动性尿路感染患者、尿分流或尿畸形患者和不可控凝血状态患者。记录围手术期资料。研究对象为PCN组和UAS组各50例。年龄从20岁到67.0岁不等。男性占研究组的一半以上,PCN组占52%,UAS组占66%。输尿管术前支架置入术需求在两组间存在微弱的显著差异(PCN组为8%,UAS组为22%,p = 0.04995)。两组术中并发症(粘膜损伤、手术失败、穿孔、假通道和转行其他手术)差异无统计学意义,但两组间出血差异有统计学意义(PCN组6% vs UAS组22%,p = 0.021)。两组术后并发症(感染、发热、疼痛、血尿等并发症、结石流放率、再入院、支架时间)差异无统计学意义,但两组手术时间显著缩短(PCN组48.85±13.861比UAS组56.82±14.61,p = 0.0003)。我们得出结论,在输尿管软镜检查前植入PCN是一种安全的技术,其结果与使用UAS相当。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Urolithiasis
Urolithiasis UROLOGY & NEPHROLOGY-
CiteScore
4.50
自引率
6.50%
发文量
74
期刊介绍: Official Journal of the International Urolithiasis Society The journal aims to publish original articles in the fields of clinical and experimental investigation only within the sphere of urolithiasis and its related areas of research. The journal covers all aspects of urolithiasis research including the diagnosis, epidemiology, pathogenesis, genetics, clinical biochemistry, open and non-invasive surgical intervention, nephrological investigation, chemistry and prophylaxis of the disorder. The Editor welcomes contributions on topics of interest to urologists, nephrologists, radiologists, clinical biochemists, epidemiologists, nutritionists, basic scientists and nurses working in that field. Contributions may be submitted as full-length articles or as rapid communications in the form of Letters to the Editor. Articles should be original and should contain important new findings from carefully conducted studies designed to produce statistically significant data. Please note that we no longer publish articles classified as Case Reports. Editorials and review articles may be published by invitation from the Editorial Board. All submissions are peer-reviewed. Through an electronic system for the submission and review of manuscripts, the Editor and Associate Editors aim to make publication accessible as quickly as possible to a large number of readers throughout the world.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信