7.5Fr 微型柔性输尿管镜在 RIRS 中的应用:多中心随机对照试验的初步结果。

IF 2.9 2区 医学 Q1 UROLOGY & NEPHROLOGY
Journal of endourology Pub Date : 2024-05-01 Epub Date: 2024-04-04 DOI:10.1089/end.2023.0540
Wen Zhong, Wei Zhu, Zhijian Zhao, Banghua Liao, Haixing Mai, Changwei Liu, Kunjie Wang, Xu Zhang, Changbao Xu, Guohua Zeng
{"title":"7.5Fr 微型柔性输尿管镜在 RIRS 中的应用:多中心随机对照试验的初步结果。","authors":"Wen Zhong, Wei Zhu, Zhijian Zhao, Banghua Liao, Haixing Mai, Changwei Liu, Kunjie Wang, Xu Zhang, Changbao Xu, Guohua Zeng","doi":"10.1089/end.2023.0540","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p><b><i>Objective:</i></b> To report the initial results of an randomized clinical trail comparing the safety and efficacy between 7.5F and 9.2F flexible ureteroscope (FUS) in the management of renal calculi <2 cm. <b><i>Materials and Methods:</i></b> Eighty patients were enrolled and received retrograde intrarenal surgery (RIRS) with a different size FUS. The operation results and complications were compared. <b><i>Results:</i></b> Two cases in the 7.5F group and four cases in the 9.2F group failed to insert the 12/14F ureteral access sheath (UAS), respectively, and no significant difference (<i>p</i> = 0.396) was noted. However, 10/12F UAS was inserted in the 7.5F group, but not available in the 9.2F group, and thus, the 10/12F UAS inserting rate in the 7.5F group was higher than in the 9.2F group (100% <i>vs</i> 0%, <i>p</i> = 0.014), and the UAS insertion failure rate in 9.2F group was higher than in the 7.5F group (10% <i>vs</i> 0%, <i>p</i> = 0.040). The operation time in 7.5F group was shorter than the 9.2F group (35.60 ± 7.86 <i>vs</i> 41.05 ± 8.14, <i>p</i> = 0.003). Less irrigation was required in 7.5F group (813.93 ± 279.47 mL <i>vs</i> 1504.18 ± 385.31 mL, <i>p</i> = 0.000). The postoperative fever rate in 9.2F group was higher than 7.5F group (20% <i>vs</i> 5%, <i>p</i> = 0.043). There was no significant difference in sepsis (0% <i>vs</i> 2.5%, <i>p</i> = 0.314) between the two groups. No significant difference was noted in hospital stay (0.93 ± 0.49 days <i>vs</i> 1.14 ± 0.64 days, <i>p</i> = 0.099) between the two groups. The final stone-free rate (SFR) in 7.5F group was higher than 9.2F group (95% <i>vs</i> 80%, <i>p</i> = 0.043). <b><i>Conclusion:</i></b> The latest 7.5F mini FUS was a reliable instrument in RIRS to keep a good visualization with low requirement of irrigation, low postoperative infection complication, and also a high SFR when compared with the conventional 9.2F FUS. <b><i>Clinical Trial Registration:</i></b> NCT05231577.</p>","PeriodicalId":15723,"journal":{"name":"Journal of endourology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.9000,"publicationDate":"2024-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"7.5F Mini Flexible Ureteroscope in Retrograde Intrarenal Surgery: Initial Results from a Multicenter Randomized Clinical Trial.\",\"authors\":\"Wen Zhong, Wei Zhu, Zhijian Zhao, Banghua Liao, Haixing Mai, Changwei Liu, Kunjie Wang, Xu Zhang, Changbao Xu, Guohua Zeng\",\"doi\":\"10.1089/end.2023.0540\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p><b><i>Objective:</i></b> To report the initial results of an randomized clinical trail comparing the safety and efficacy between 7.5F and 9.2F flexible ureteroscope (FUS) in the management of renal calculi <2 cm. <b><i>Materials and Methods:</i></b> Eighty patients were enrolled and received retrograde intrarenal surgery (RIRS) with a different size FUS. The operation results and complications were compared. <b><i>Results:</i></b> Two cases in the 7.5F group and four cases in the 9.2F group failed to insert the 12/14F ureteral access sheath (UAS), respectively, and no significant difference (<i>p</i> = 0.396) was noted. However, 10/12F UAS was inserted in the 7.5F group, but not available in the 9.2F group, and thus, the 10/12F UAS inserting rate in the 7.5F group was higher than in the 9.2F group (100% <i>vs</i> 0%, <i>p</i> = 0.014), and the UAS insertion failure rate in 9.2F group was higher than in the 7.5F group (10% <i>vs</i> 0%, <i>p</i> = 0.040). The operation time in 7.5F group was shorter than the 9.2F group (35.60 ± 7.86 <i>vs</i> 41.05 ± 8.14, <i>p</i> = 0.003). Less irrigation was required in 7.5F group (813.93 ± 279.47 mL <i>vs</i> 1504.18 ± 385.31 mL, <i>p</i> = 0.000). The postoperative fever rate in 9.2F group was higher than 7.5F group (20% <i>vs</i> 5%, <i>p</i> = 0.043). There was no significant difference in sepsis (0% <i>vs</i> 2.5%, <i>p</i> = 0.314) between the two groups. No significant difference was noted in hospital stay (0.93 ± 0.49 days <i>vs</i> 1.14 ± 0.64 days, <i>p</i> = 0.099) between the two groups. The final stone-free rate (SFR) in 7.5F group was higher than 9.2F group (95% <i>vs</i> 80%, <i>p</i> = 0.043). <b><i>Conclusion:</i></b> The latest 7.5F mini FUS was a reliable instrument in RIRS to keep a good visualization with low requirement of irrigation, low postoperative infection complication, and also a high SFR when compared with the conventional 9.2F FUS. <b><i>Clinical Trial Registration:</i></b> NCT05231577.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":15723,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of endourology\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.9000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-05-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of endourology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1089/end.2023.0540\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2024/4/4 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"UROLOGY & NEPHROLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of endourology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1089/end.2023.0540","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/4/4 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"UROLOGY & NEPHROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的比较 7.5Fr 和 9.2Fr 柔性输尿管镜(FUS)在治疗肾结石中的安全性和有效性 材料和方法:80 例患者入组,使用不同尺寸的 FUS 接受逆行肾内手术(RIRS)。结果:7.5Fr组和9.2Fr组分别有2例和4例未能插入12/14Fr UAS,差异无显著性(P=0.396)。但 7.5Fr 组插入了 10/12Fr UAS,而 9.2Fr 组没有,因此 7.5Fr 组 10/12Fr UAS 插入率高于 9.2Fr 组(100% 对 0%,P=0.014),而 9.2Fr 组 UAS 插入失败率高于 7.5Fr 组(10% 对 0%,P=0.040)。7.5Fr 组的手术时间比 9.2Fr 组短(35.60±7.86 vs 41.05±8.14,P=0.003)。7.5Fr 组所需冲洗量较少(813.93±279.47 vs 1504.18±385.31 ml,P=0.000)。9.2Fr 组的术后发热率高于 7.5Fr 组(20% vs 5%,P=0.043)。两组的败血症发生率无明显差异(0 vs 2.5%,P=0.314)。两组住院时间无明显差异(0.93±0.49 对 1.14±0.64 d,P=0.099)。7.5Fr组的最终SFR高于9.2Fr组(95% vs 80%,P=0.043):结论:与传统的 9.2Fr 柔性输尿管镜相比,最新的 7.5Fr 微型柔性输尿管镜在 RIRS 中是一种可靠的器械,可保持良好的可视性,灌洗要求低,术后感染并发症少,SFR 高。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
7.5F Mini Flexible Ureteroscope in Retrograde Intrarenal Surgery: Initial Results from a Multicenter Randomized Clinical Trial.

Objective: To report the initial results of an randomized clinical trail comparing the safety and efficacy between 7.5F and 9.2F flexible ureteroscope (FUS) in the management of renal calculi <2 cm. Materials and Methods: Eighty patients were enrolled and received retrograde intrarenal surgery (RIRS) with a different size FUS. The operation results and complications were compared. Results: Two cases in the 7.5F group and four cases in the 9.2F group failed to insert the 12/14F ureteral access sheath (UAS), respectively, and no significant difference (p = 0.396) was noted. However, 10/12F UAS was inserted in the 7.5F group, but not available in the 9.2F group, and thus, the 10/12F UAS inserting rate in the 7.5F group was higher than in the 9.2F group (100% vs 0%, p = 0.014), and the UAS insertion failure rate in 9.2F group was higher than in the 7.5F group (10% vs 0%, p = 0.040). The operation time in 7.5F group was shorter than the 9.2F group (35.60 ± 7.86 vs 41.05 ± 8.14, p = 0.003). Less irrigation was required in 7.5F group (813.93 ± 279.47 mL vs 1504.18 ± 385.31 mL, p = 0.000). The postoperative fever rate in 9.2F group was higher than 7.5F group (20% vs 5%, p = 0.043). There was no significant difference in sepsis (0% vs 2.5%, p = 0.314) between the two groups. No significant difference was noted in hospital stay (0.93 ± 0.49 days vs 1.14 ± 0.64 days, p = 0.099) between the two groups. The final stone-free rate (SFR) in 7.5F group was higher than 9.2F group (95% vs 80%, p = 0.043). Conclusion: The latest 7.5F mini FUS was a reliable instrument in RIRS to keep a good visualization with low requirement of irrigation, low postoperative infection complication, and also a high SFR when compared with the conventional 9.2F FUS. Clinical Trial Registration: NCT05231577.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Journal of endourology
Journal of endourology 医学-泌尿学与肾脏学
CiteScore
5.50
自引率
14.80%
发文量
254
审稿时长
1 months
期刊介绍: Journal of Endourology, JE Case Reports, and Videourology are the leading peer-reviewed journal, case reports publication, and innovative videojournal companion covering all aspects of minimally invasive urology research, applications, and clinical outcomes. The leading journal of minimally invasive urology for over 30 years, Journal of Endourology is the essential publication for practicing surgeons who want to keep up with the latest surgical technologies in endoscopic, laparoscopic, robotic, and image-guided procedures as they apply to benign and malignant diseases of the genitourinary tract. This flagship journal includes the companion videojournal Videourology™ with every subscription. While Journal of Endourology remains focused on publishing rigorously peer reviewed articles, Videourology accepts original videos containing material that has not been reported elsewhere, except in the form of an abstract or a conference presentation. Journal of Endourology coverage includes: The latest laparoscopic, robotic, endoscopic, and image-guided techniques for treating both benign and malignant conditions Pioneering research articles Controversial cases in endourology Techniques in endourology with accompanying videos Reviews and epochs in endourology Endourology survey section of endourology relevant manuscripts published in other journals.
×
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