输尿管软镜和可导航抽吸输尿管通路鞘(FANS)不同尺寸鞘的多中心结果分析:EAU 内泌尿学与全球 FANS 研究小组的合作。

IF 2 2区 医学 Q2 UROLOGY & NEPHROLOGY
Jia-Lun Kwok, Bhaskar Somani, Kemal Sarica, Steffi Kar Kei Yuen, Marek Zawadzki, Daniele Castellani, Satyendra Persaud, Chu Ann Chai, Wissam Kamal, Tzevat Tefik, Azimdjon N Tursunkulov, Boyke Soebhali, Albert El Hajj, Raymond Ko, Khi Yung Fong, Laurian Dragos, Yiloren Tanidir, Oriol Angerri, Olivier Traxer, Vineet Gauhar
{"title":"输尿管软镜和可导航抽吸输尿管通路鞘(FANS)不同尺寸鞘的多中心结果分析:EAU 内泌尿学与全球 FANS 研究小组的合作。","authors":"Jia-Lun Kwok, Bhaskar Somani, Kemal Sarica, Steffi Kar Kei Yuen, Marek Zawadzki, Daniele Castellani, Satyendra Persaud, Chu Ann Chai, Wissam Kamal, Tzevat Tefik, Azimdjon N Tursunkulov, Boyke Soebhali, Albert El Hajj, Raymond Ko, Khi Yung Fong, Laurian Dragos, Yiloren Tanidir, Oriol Angerri, Olivier Traxer, Vineet Gauhar","doi":"10.1007/s00240-024-01662-4","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Flexible and navigable suction ureteral access sheath (FANS) is a potential game changer in flexible ureteroscopy (FURS). The influence of sheath size on outcomes needs research. The primary aim was to analyze 30-day single stage stone free status (SFS), zero fragment rate (ZFR) and complications when using 10/12Fr sheaths vis a vis other sheath sizes. The global FANS research group published the 30-day outcomes in patients who underwent FANS and reasoned this can be a potential game changer. We included 295 patients from this anonymized dataset with division into two groups: Group 1 (Smaller sheath) - 10/12Fr FANS, and Group 2 (Larger sheath) - 11/13Fr or 12/14Fr sheaths. Stone volume was similar between both groups (median 1320 mm<sup>3</sup>, p = 0.88). Ureteroscopy and total operative time was longer in the smaller sheath group (35 vs. 32 min, p = 0.02 and 50 vs. 45 min, p = 0.001, respectively). While 30-day computed tomography SFS (100% stone free or single residual fragment ≤ 2 mm) were not significantly different (96% vs. 95%, p > 0.99), ZFR (100% stone-free) was better with smaller sheaths (68% vs. 53%, p = 0.02). There was no difference in postoperative complication rates, and no sepsis in both groups. Urologists should consider individualizing appropriate sheath size in normal adult kidneys. Sheath size did not affect complication rates, risk of perioperative injury to the pelvicalyceal system or ureteric injury, but smaller FANS sheaths had similar high SFS. The ZFR with smaller sheaths was better, but this needs to be validated. These smaller sheath outcomes need to be balanced with longer ureteroscopy time, operative time, reach to the lower pole, ease of suction and visibility during lithotripsy. Large volume studies in different types of pelvicalyceal anatomy can determine if indeed smaller FANS is the best choice in FURS.</p>","PeriodicalId":23411,"journal":{"name":"Urolithiasis","volume":"52 1","pages":"162"},"PeriodicalIF":2.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Multicenter outcome analysis of different sheath sizes for Flexible and Navigable Suction ureteral access sheath (FANS) ureteroscopy: an EAU Endourology collaboration with the global FANS study group.\",\"authors\":\"Jia-Lun Kwok, Bhaskar Somani, Kemal Sarica, Steffi Kar Kei Yuen, Marek Zawadzki, Daniele Castellani, Satyendra Persaud, Chu Ann Chai, Wissam Kamal, Tzevat Tefik, Azimdjon N Tursunkulov, Boyke Soebhali, Albert El Hajj, Raymond Ko, Khi Yung Fong, Laurian Dragos, Yiloren Tanidir, Oriol Angerri, Olivier Traxer, Vineet Gauhar\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s00240-024-01662-4\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Flexible and navigable suction ureteral access sheath (FANS) is a potential game changer in flexible ureteroscopy (FURS). The influence of sheath size on outcomes needs research. The primary aim was to analyze 30-day single stage stone free status (SFS), zero fragment rate (ZFR) and complications when using 10/12Fr sheaths vis a vis other sheath sizes. The global FANS research group published the 30-day outcomes in patients who underwent FANS and reasoned this can be a potential game changer. We included 295 patients from this anonymized dataset with division into two groups: Group 1 (Smaller sheath) - 10/12Fr FANS, and Group 2 (Larger sheath) - 11/13Fr or 12/14Fr sheaths. Stone volume was similar between both groups (median 1320 mm<sup>3</sup>, p = 0.88). Ureteroscopy and total operative time was longer in the smaller sheath group (35 vs. 32 min, p = 0.02 and 50 vs. 45 min, p = 0.001, respectively). While 30-day computed tomography SFS (100% stone free or single residual fragment ≤ 2 mm) were not significantly different (96% vs. 95%, p > 0.99), ZFR (100% stone-free) was better with smaller sheaths (68% vs. 53%, p = 0.02). There was no difference in postoperative complication rates, and no sepsis in both groups. Urologists should consider individualizing appropriate sheath size in normal adult kidneys. Sheath size did not affect complication rates, risk of perioperative injury to the pelvicalyceal system or ureteric injury, but smaller FANS sheaths had similar high SFS. The ZFR with smaller sheaths was better, but this needs to be validated. These smaller sheath outcomes need to be balanced with longer ureteroscopy time, operative time, reach to the lower pole, ease of suction and visibility during lithotripsy. Large volume studies in different types of pelvicalyceal anatomy can determine if indeed smaller FANS is the best choice in FURS.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":23411,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Urolithiasis\",\"volume\":\"52 1\",\"pages\":\"162\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-11-15\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Urolithiasis\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s00240-024-01662-4\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"UROLOGY & NEPHROLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Urolithiasis","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s00240-024-01662-4","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

摘要

柔性可导航抽吸输尿管通路鞘(FANS)有望改变柔性输尿管镜检查(FURS)的游戏规则。鞘的大小对结果的影响需要研究。研究的主要目的是分析使用 10/12Fr 插管与其他尺寸插管的 30 天单期无结石状态 (SFS)、零碎片率 (ZFR) 和并发症。全球 FANS 研究小组公布了接受 FANS 治疗的患者的 30 天疗效,并认为这有可能改变游戏规则。我们从这个匿名数据集中纳入了 295 名患者,并将其分为两组:第一组(较小的鞘)--10/12Fr FANS,第二组(较大的鞘)--11/13Fr 或 12/14Fr 鞘。两组结石体积相似(中位 1320 mm3,p = 0.88)。较小鞘管组的输尿管镜检查时间和总手术时间更长(分别为 35 分钟对 32 分钟,p = 0.02 和 50 分钟对 45 分钟,p = 0.001)。虽然 30 天的计算机断层扫描 SFS(100% 无结石或单个残余碎片小于 2 毫米)没有显著差异(96% 对 95%,p > 0.99),但小鞘的 ZFR(100% 无结石)更好(68% 对 53%,p = 0.02)。两组的术后并发症发生率和败血症发生率没有差异。泌尿科医生应考虑为正常成人肾脏选择合适的鞘管尺寸。鞘的大小并不影响并发症发生率、围术期肾盂-膀胱系统损伤风险或输尿管损伤,但较小的FANS鞘具有相似的高SFS。小号鞘的ZFR更好,但这需要验证。这些较小鞘的结果需要与较长的输尿管镜检查时间、手术时间、到达下极的距离、抽吸的难易程度以及碎石过程中的可视性相平衡。对不同类型的肾盂膀胱解剖进行大量研究,可以确定较小的 FANS 是否是 FURS 的最佳选择。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Multicenter outcome analysis of different sheath sizes for Flexible and Navigable Suction ureteral access sheath (FANS) ureteroscopy: an EAU Endourology collaboration with the global FANS study group.

Flexible and navigable suction ureteral access sheath (FANS) is a potential game changer in flexible ureteroscopy (FURS). The influence of sheath size on outcomes needs research. The primary aim was to analyze 30-day single stage stone free status (SFS), zero fragment rate (ZFR) and complications when using 10/12Fr sheaths vis a vis other sheath sizes. The global FANS research group published the 30-day outcomes in patients who underwent FANS and reasoned this can be a potential game changer. We included 295 patients from this anonymized dataset with division into two groups: Group 1 (Smaller sheath) - 10/12Fr FANS, and Group 2 (Larger sheath) - 11/13Fr or 12/14Fr sheaths. Stone volume was similar between both groups (median 1320 mm3, p = 0.88). Ureteroscopy and total operative time was longer in the smaller sheath group (35 vs. 32 min, p = 0.02 and 50 vs. 45 min, p = 0.001, respectively). While 30-day computed tomography SFS (100% stone free or single residual fragment ≤ 2 mm) were not significantly different (96% vs. 95%, p > 0.99), ZFR (100% stone-free) was better with smaller sheaths (68% vs. 53%, p = 0.02). There was no difference in postoperative complication rates, and no sepsis in both groups. Urologists should consider individualizing appropriate sheath size in normal adult kidneys. Sheath size did not affect complication rates, risk of perioperative injury to the pelvicalyceal system or ureteric injury, but smaller FANS sheaths had similar high SFS. The ZFR with smaller sheaths was better, but this needs to be validated. These smaller sheath outcomes need to be balanced with longer ureteroscopy time, operative time, reach to the lower pole, ease of suction and visibility during lithotripsy. Large volume studies in different types of pelvicalyceal anatomy can determine if indeed smaller FANS is the best choice in FURS.

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
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