Comparison of flexible ureteroscopy with flexible and navigable suction ureteral access sheath and mini-percutaneous nephrolithotripsy for the treatment of impacted upper ureteral stones: a retrospective study.

IF 1.6 4区 医学 Q2 SURGERY
Frontiers in Surgery Pub Date : 2025-03-27 eCollection Date: 2025-01-01 DOI:10.3389/fsurg.2025.1562428
Haiyang Tang, Yulong Che, Zhanpeng Wu, Fangchao Yuan, Jiayu Liu, Jie Li
{"title":"Comparison of flexible ureteroscopy with flexible and navigable suction ureteral access sheath and mini-percutaneous nephrolithotripsy for the treatment of impacted upper ureteral stones: a retrospective study.","authors":"Haiyang Tang, Yulong Che, Zhanpeng Wu, Fangchao Yuan, Jiayu Liu, Jie Li","doi":"10.3389/fsurg.2025.1562428","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background and objective: </strong>The treatment of impacted upper ureteral stones remains a significant challenge for urologists. Standard treatment protocols often favor Mini-Percutaneous Nephrolithotripsy (Mini-PCNL). It has been supposed to be associated with a higher stone clearance rate and a lower incidence of ureteral stricture compared to Flexible Ureteroscopy (FURS). Recently, FURS with flexible and navigable suction ureteral access sheath (FANS) has emerged as a promising alternative. The aim of this study was to compare the efficacy and safety of the FURS with FANS and Mini-PCNL for treating the impacted upper ureteral stones.</p><p><strong>Method: </strong>A retrospective study of 80 patients treated with FURS with FANS (Group A, <i>n</i> = 43) or Mini-PCNL (Group B, <i>n</i> = 37) was conducted in our center (from June 2023 to August 2024). Primary outcomes included stone-free rate (SFR), hemoglobin drop, hospital stay, and complications (Clavien-Dindo classification) in 3 months.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Both groups achieved comparable SFR (90.7% vs. 83.78%, <i>P</i> = 0.351). Group A had significantly lower hemoglobin drop (3.65 ± 8.39 vs. 7.89 ± 9.39 g/L, <i>P</i> = 0.036) and shorter hospital stays (1.79 ± 1.08 vs. 3.81 ± 1.37 days, <i>P</i> < 0.001). Complication rates were similar, but Group A had a higher rate of second-stage operation (18.6% vs. 8.1%, <i>P</i> = 0.174) and neither group required reoperation for ureteral stricture or rupture at 3 months post-surgery.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>FURS with FANS is a safe and effective alternative to Mini-PCNL for impacted upper ureteral stones larger than 10 mm, offering shorter recovery times and lower bleeding. However, its higher second-stage operation rate necessitates further investigation.</p>","PeriodicalId":12564,"journal":{"name":"Frontiers in Surgery","volume":"12 ","pages":"1562428"},"PeriodicalIF":1.6000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11983593/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Frontiers in Surgery","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3389/fsurg.2025.1562428","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"SURGERY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background and objective: The treatment of impacted upper ureteral stones remains a significant challenge for urologists. Standard treatment protocols often favor Mini-Percutaneous Nephrolithotripsy (Mini-PCNL). It has been supposed to be associated with a higher stone clearance rate and a lower incidence of ureteral stricture compared to Flexible Ureteroscopy (FURS). Recently, FURS with flexible and navigable suction ureteral access sheath (FANS) has emerged as a promising alternative. The aim of this study was to compare the efficacy and safety of the FURS with FANS and Mini-PCNL for treating the impacted upper ureteral stones.

Method: A retrospective study of 80 patients treated with FURS with FANS (Group A, n = 43) or Mini-PCNL (Group B, n = 37) was conducted in our center (from June 2023 to August 2024). Primary outcomes included stone-free rate (SFR), hemoglobin drop, hospital stay, and complications (Clavien-Dindo classification) in 3 months.

Results: Both groups achieved comparable SFR (90.7% vs. 83.78%, P = 0.351). Group A had significantly lower hemoglobin drop (3.65 ± 8.39 vs. 7.89 ± 9.39 g/L, P = 0.036) and shorter hospital stays (1.79 ± 1.08 vs. 3.81 ± 1.37 days, P < 0.001). Complication rates were similar, but Group A had a higher rate of second-stage operation (18.6% vs. 8.1%, P = 0.174) and neither group required reoperation for ureteral stricture or rupture at 3 months post-surgery.

Conclusion: FURS with FANS is a safe and effective alternative to Mini-PCNL for impacted upper ureteral stones larger than 10 mm, offering shorter recovery times and lower bleeding. However, its higher second-stage operation rate necessitates further investigation.

柔性输尿管镜与柔性可导航的吸引输尿管通路鞘与微型经皮肾镜术治疗上输尿管嵌塞结石的比较:回顾性研究。
背景与目的:输尿管上段梗阻结石的治疗仍然是泌尿科医师面临的一个重大挑战。标准治疗方案通常倾向于微型经皮肾镜碎石(Mini-PCNL)。与柔性输尿管镜(FURS)相比,它被认为与更高的结石清除率和更低的输尿管狭窄发生率有关。最近,具有柔性和可导航的输尿管吸入鞘(FANS)的FURS已成为一种有希望的替代方案。本研究的目的是比较FURS与FANS和Mini-PCNL治疗梗阻上输尿管结石的疗效和安全性。方法:回顾性研究本中心(2023年6月至2024年8月)80例使用FANS (A组,n = 43)或Mini-PCNL (B组,n = 37)治疗FURS的患者。主要结局包括3个月内无结石率(SFR)、血红蛋白下降、住院时间和并发症(Clavien-Dindo分类)。结果:两组的SFR相当(90.7%比83.78%,P = 0.351)。A组患者血红蛋白下降(3.65±8.39比7.89±9.39 g/L, P = 0.036)明显降低,住院时间(1.79±1.08比3.81±1.37 d, P = 0.174)明显缩短,术后3个月两组均未因输尿管狭窄或破裂再次手术。结论:对于大于10 mm的上段输尿管结石,FURS联合FANS是Mini-PCNL安全有效的替代方案,恢复时间短,出血量少。然而,其较高的二次开工率需要进一步研究。
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
Frontiers in Surgery
Frontiers in Surgery Medicine-Surgery
CiteScore
1.90
自引率
11.10%
发文量
1872
审稿时长
12 weeks
期刊介绍: Evidence of surgical interventions go back to prehistoric times. Since then, the field of surgery has developed into a complex array of specialties and procedures, particularly with the advent of microsurgery, lasers and minimally invasive techniques. The advanced skills now required from surgeons has led to ever increasing specialization, though these still share important fundamental principles. Frontiers in Surgery is the umbrella journal representing the publication interests of all surgical specialties. It is divided into several “Specialty Sections” listed below. All these sections have their own Specialty Chief Editor, Editorial Board and homepage, but all articles carry the citation Frontiers in Surgery. Frontiers in Surgery calls upon medical professionals and scientists from all surgical specialties to publish their experimental and clinical studies in this journal. By assembling all surgical specialties, which nonetheless retain their independence, under the common umbrella of Frontiers in Surgery, a powerful publication venue is created. Since there is often overlap and common ground between the different surgical specialties, assembly of all surgical disciplines into a single journal will foster a collaborative dialogue amongst the surgical community. This means that publications, which are also of interest to other surgical specialties, will reach a wider audience and have greater impact. The aim of this multidisciplinary journal is to create a discussion and knowledge platform of advances and research findings in surgical practice today to continuously improve clinical management of patients and foster innovation in this field.
×
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