Vineet Gauhar, Chu Ann Chai, Ben H Chew, Abhishek Singh, Daniele Castellani, Thomas Tailly, Esteban Emiliani, William Ong Lay Keat, Deepak Ragoori, Mohamed Amine Lakmichi, Jeremy Yuen-Chun Teoh, Olivier Traxer, Bhaskar Kumar Somani
{"title":"RIRS with disposable or reusable scopes: does it make a difference? Results from the multicenter FLEXOR study.","authors":"Vineet Gauhar, Chu Ann Chai, Ben H Chew, Abhishek Singh, Daniele Castellani, Thomas Tailly, Esteban Emiliani, William Ong Lay Keat, Deepak Ragoori, Mohamed Amine Lakmichi, Jeremy Yuen-Chun Teoh, Olivier Traxer, Bhaskar Kumar Somani","doi":"10.1177/17562872231158072","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>With several single-use ureteroscopes now available, our aim was to analyze and compare data obtained globally from high-volume centers using both disposable and reusable flexible ureteroscopes and see if indeed in real-world practice either scope has a distinct advantage.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Retrospective analysis was performed on the FLEXOR registry, which was created as a TOWER group (Team of Worldwide Endourological Researchers, research wing of the Endourological Society) endeavor. Patients who underwent retrograde intrarenal surgery (RIRS) for renal stones from January 2018 to August 2021 were enrolled from 20 centers globally. A total of 6663 patients whose data were available for analysis were divided into Group 1 (Reusable scopes, 4808 patients) <i>versus</i> Group 2 (Disposable scopes, 1855 patients).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The age and gender distribution were similar in both groups. The mean stone size was 11.8 mm and 9.6 mm in Groups 2 and 1, respectively (<i>p</i> < 0.001). Group 2 had more patients with >2 cm stones, lower pole stones and of higher Hounsfield unit. Thulium fiber laser (TFL) was used more in Group 2 (<i>p</i> < 0.001). Patients in Group 2 had a slightly higher stone-free rate (SFR) (78.22%) and a lower number of residual fragments (RFs) compared with Group 1 (<i>p</i> < 0.001). The need for further treatments for RF and overall complications was comparable between groups. On multivariate analysis, overall complications were more likely to occur in elderly patients, larger stone size, lower pole stones, and were also more when using disposable scopes with longer operative time. RFs were significantly higher (<i>p</i> < 0.001) for lower pole, larger, harder, multiple stones and in elderly.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Our real-world practice observations suggest that urologists choose disposable scopes for bigger, lower pole, and harder stones, and it does indeed help in improving the single-stage SFR if used correctly, with the appropriate lasers and lasing techniques in expert hands.</p>","PeriodicalId":23010,"journal":{"name":"Therapeutic Advances in Urology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.6000,"publicationDate":"2023-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub/pmc/oa_pdf/81/2e/10.1177_17562872231158072.PMC10009018.pdf","citationCount":"3","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Therapeutic Advances in Urology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/17562872231158072","RegionNum":4,"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: 3
Abstract
Introduction: With several single-use ureteroscopes now available, our aim was to analyze and compare data obtained globally from high-volume centers using both disposable and reusable flexible ureteroscopes and see if indeed in real-world practice either scope has a distinct advantage.
Methods: Retrospective analysis was performed on the FLEXOR registry, which was created as a TOWER group (Team of Worldwide Endourological Researchers, research wing of the Endourological Society) endeavor. Patients who underwent retrograde intrarenal surgery (RIRS) for renal stones from January 2018 to August 2021 were enrolled from 20 centers globally. A total of 6663 patients whose data were available for analysis were divided into Group 1 (Reusable scopes, 4808 patients) versus Group 2 (Disposable scopes, 1855 patients).
Results: The age and gender distribution were similar in both groups. The mean stone size was 11.8 mm and 9.6 mm in Groups 2 and 1, respectively (p < 0.001). Group 2 had more patients with >2 cm stones, lower pole stones and of higher Hounsfield unit. Thulium fiber laser (TFL) was used more in Group 2 (p < 0.001). Patients in Group 2 had a slightly higher stone-free rate (SFR) (78.22%) and a lower number of residual fragments (RFs) compared with Group 1 (p < 0.001). The need for further treatments for RF and overall complications was comparable between groups. On multivariate analysis, overall complications were more likely to occur in elderly patients, larger stone size, lower pole stones, and were also more when using disposable scopes with longer operative time. RFs were significantly higher (p < 0.001) for lower pole, larger, harder, multiple stones and in elderly.
Conclusion: Our real-world practice observations suggest that urologists choose disposable scopes for bigger, lower pole, and harder stones, and it does indeed help in improving the single-stage SFR if used correctly, with the appropriate lasers and lasing techniques in expert hands.
导读:现在有几种一次性输尿管镜可用,我们的目的是分析和比较全球大容量中心使用一次性和可重复使用的柔性输尿管镜获得的数据,看看在现实世界的实践中,这两种输尿管镜是否确实具有明显的优势。方法:对FLEXOR注册表进行回顾性分析,该注册表是由TOWER组(世界泌尿系统研究小组,泌尿系统学会的研究部门)创建的。2018年1月至2021年8月,来自全球20个中心的肾结石患者接受了逆行肾内手术(RIRS)。共有6663例可用于分析的患者被分为1组(可重复使用的镜架,4808例)和2组(一次性镜架,1855例)。结果:两组患者年龄、性别分布相似。2组和1组的平均结石大小分别为11.8 mm和9.6 mm (2 cm结石、下极结石和高Hounsfield单位结石)。结论:我们的现实世界实践观察表明,泌尿科医生选择一次性镜治疗更大、更低极、更硬的结石,如果使用正确,在专家的指导下使用适当的激光和激光技术,它确实有助于改善单期SFR。
期刊介绍:
Therapeutic Advances in Urology delivers the highest quality peer-reviewed articles, reviews, and scholarly comment on pioneering efforts and innovative studies across all areas of urology.
The journal has a strong clinical and pharmacological focus and is aimed at clinicians and researchers in urology, providing a forum in print and online for publishing the highest quality articles in this area. The editors welcome articles of current interest across all areas of urology, including treatment of urological disorders, with a focus on emerging pharmacological therapies.