Khi Yung Fong, Bhaskar Somani, Patrick Juliebø-Jones, Daniele Castellani, Chin Tiong Heng, Jia-Lun Kwok, Chu-Ann Chai, Wissam Kamal, Chinnakhet Ketsuwan, Kremena Petkova, Boyke Soebhali, Marek Zawadzki, Saeed Bin Hamri, Mohamed Elshazly, Yi Quan Tan, Pablo Nicolas Contreras, Lazaros Tzelves, Andreas Skolarikos, Steffi Yuen, Olivier Traxer, Vineet Gauhar
{"title":"柔性输尿管镜和激光碎石使用柔性和可导航输尿管通路鞘是同样安全有效的,无论是坐着还是站着的位置:一项多中心研究由欧洲泌尿外科-腔内学协会和柔性和可导航的吸引通路鞘协作组。","authors":"Khi Yung Fong, Bhaskar Somani, Patrick Juliebø-Jones, Daniele Castellani, Chin Tiong Heng, Jia-Lun Kwok, Chu-Ann Chai, Wissam Kamal, Chinnakhet Ketsuwan, Kremena Petkova, Boyke Soebhali, Marek Zawadzki, Saeed Bin Hamri, Mohamed Elshazly, Yi Quan Tan, Pablo Nicolas Contreras, Lazaros Tzelves, Andreas Skolarikos, Steffi Yuen, Olivier Traxer, Vineet Gauhar","doi":"10.1177/08927790251364288","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p><b><i>Introduction:</i></b> Flexible ureteroscopy (FURS) using the flexible and navigable suction ureteral access sheath (FANS) is a novel technique for treatment of kidney stones. We aimed to compare outcomes of FURS with FANS in the sitting vs standing position. <b><i>Patients and Methods:</i></b> We analyzed adult patients from 21 centers who underwent FURS with FANS, divided according to whether the surgeon operated in a sitting or standing position. Baseline demographics, operative parameters, and 30-day outcomes were compared. Multivariable logistic regression was used to identify potential predictive factors for zero residual fragments (ZRF). <b><i>Results:</i></b> There were 457 patients in the sitting group and 247 patients in the standing group. In the sitting group, more patients had the surgical procedure under general anesthesia (<i>p</i> = 0.022). Disposable scopes were preferred in the standing group (<i>p</i> < 0.001). Median lasing and ureteroscopy time were significantly shorter in the siting group, but there was no difference in total surgical time (median 45 vs 46 minutes, <i>p</i> = 0.102). A larger but nonsignificant percentage of grade 1 access sheath insertion injuries were reported in the standing position. Multivariable logistic regression analysis showed that stone volume (odds ratio [OR]: 0.82, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.72-0.93, <i>p</i> = 0.003) and operative time (OR: 0.99, 95% CI 0.99-1.00, <i>p</i> = 0.002) but not surgeon position (OR: 1.04, 95% CI: 0.75-1.44, <i>p</i> = 0.82) were significant predictors of ZRF. Procedural safety was not compromised significantly. <b><i>Conclusions:</i></b> FURS with FANS is equally safe and effective in the sitting and standing positions. This study provides the impetus to improve FURS ergonomics, especially with the move toward its use in complex and large stones.</p>","PeriodicalId":15723,"journal":{"name":"Journal of endourology","volume":" ","pages":"841-848"},"PeriodicalIF":2.8000,"publicationDate":"2025-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Flexible Ureteroscopy and Laser Lithotripsy Using a Flexible and Navigable Ureteral Access Sheath Are Equally Safe and Effective whether Done in a Sitting or a Standing Position: A Multicenter Study by European Association of Urology-Endourology and the Flexible and Navigable Suction Access Sheath Collaborative Group.\",\"authors\":\"Khi Yung Fong, Bhaskar Somani, Patrick Juliebø-Jones, Daniele Castellani, Chin Tiong Heng, Jia-Lun Kwok, Chu-Ann Chai, Wissam Kamal, Chinnakhet Ketsuwan, Kremena Petkova, Boyke Soebhali, Marek Zawadzki, Saeed Bin Hamri, Mohamed Elshazly, Yi Quan Tan, Pablo Nicolas Contreras, Lazaros Tzelves, Andreas Skolarikos, Steffi Yuen, Olivier Traxer, Vineet Gauhar\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/08927790251364288\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p><b><i>Introduction:</i></b> Flexible ureteroscopy (FURS) using the flexible and navigable suction ureteral access sheath (FANS) is a novel technique for treatment of kidney stones. We aimed to compare outcomes of FURS with FANS in the sitting vs standing position. <b><i>Patients and Methods:</i></b> We analyzed adult patients from 21 centers who underwent FURS with FANS, divided according to whether the surgeon operated in a sitting or standing position. Baseline demographics, operative parameters, and 30-day outcomes were compared. Multivariable logistic regression was used to identify potential predictive factors for zero residual fragments (ZRF). <b><i>Results:</i></b> There were 457 patients in the sitting group and 247 patients in the standing group. In the sitting group, more patients had the surgical procedure under general anesthesia (<i>p</i> = 0.022). Disposable scopes were preferred in the standing group (<i>p</i> < 0.001). Median lasing and ureteroscopy time were significantly shorter in the siting group, but there was no difference in total surgical time (median 45 vs 46 minutes, <i>p</i> = 0.102). A larger but nonsignificant percentage of grade 1 access sheath insertion injuries were reported in the standing position. Multivariable logistic regression analysis showed that stone volume (odds ratio [OR]: 0.82, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.72-0.93, <i>p</i> = 0.003) and operative time (OR: 0.99, 95% CI 0.99-1.00, <i>p</i> = 0.002) but not surgeon position (OR: 1.04, 95% CI: 0.75-1.44, <i>p</i> = 0.82) were significant predictors of ZRF. Procedural safety was not compromised significantly. <b><i>Conclusions:</i></b> FURS with FANS is equally safe and effective in the sitting and standing positions. This study provides the impetus to improve FURS ergonomics, especially with the move toward its use in complex and large stones.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":15723,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of endourology\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"841-848\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-08-01\",\"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/10.1177/08927790251364288\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2025/7/29 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/10.1177/08927790251364288","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/7/29 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"UROLOGY & NEPHROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
导读:柔性输尿管镜(FURS)是一种治疗肾结石的新技术。我们的目的是比较坐位和站位时FURS和FANS的结果。患者和方法:我们分析了来自21个中心的接受FURS和FANS手术的成年患者,根据外科医生是坐着还是站着进行手术。比较基线人口统计学、手术参数和30天结果。采用多变量logistic回归方法对零残留碎片(ZRF)的潜在预测因素进行分析。结果:坐位组457例,站立组247例。在坐着组,更多的患者在全身麻醉下进行手术(p = 0.022)。站立组首选一次性镜检(p < 0.001)。坐位组中位激光和输尿管镜检查时间明显缩短,但总手术时间无差异(中位45分钟vs中位46分钟,p = 0.102)。1级通路鞘插入损伤的较大但不显著的百分比在站立位置报道。多变量logistic回归分析显示,结石体积(优势比[OR]: 0.82, 95%可信区间[CI]: 0.72-0.93, p = 0.003)和手术时间(OR: 0.99, 95% CI: 0.99-1.00, p = 0.002)是ZRF的显著预测因子,而手术体位(OR: 1.04, 95% CI: 0.75-1.44, p = 0.82)不是。程序安全性没有明显受损。结论:FURS与FANS在坐位和站位同样安全有效。这项研究为改善FURS的人体工程学提供了动力,特别是在复杂和大型结石的应用方面。
Flexible Ureteroscopy and Laser Lithotripsy Using a Flexible and Navigable Ureteral Access Sheath Are Equally Safe and Effective whether Done in a Sitting or a Standing Position: A Multicenter Study by European Association of Urology-Endourology and the Flexible and Navigable Suction Access Sheath Collaborative Group.
Introduction: Flexible ureteroscopy (FURS) using the flexible and navigable suction ureteral access sheath (FANS) is a novel technique for treatment of kidney stones. We aimed to compare outcomes of FURS with FANS in the sitting vs standing position. Patients and Methods: We analyzed adult patients from 21 centers who underwent FURS with FANS, divided according to whether the surgeon operated in a sitting or standing position. Baseline demographics, operative parameters, and 30-day outcomes were compared. Multivariable logistic regression was used to identify potential predictive factors for zero residual fragments (ZRF). Results: There were 457 patients in the sitting group and 247 patients in the standing group. In the sitting group, more patients had the surgical procedure under general anesthesia (p = 0.022). Disposable scopes were preferred in the standing group (p < 0.001). Median lasing and ureteroscopy time were significantly shorter in the siting group, but there was no difference in total surgical time (median 45 vs 46 minutes, p = 0.102). A larger but nonsignificant percentage of grade 1 access sheath insertion injuries were reported in the standing position. Multivariable logistic regression analysis showed that stone volume (odds ratio [OR]: 0.82, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.72-0.93, p = 0.003) and operative time (OR: 0.99, 95% CI 0.99-1.00, p = 0.002) but not surgeon position (OR: 1.04, 95% CI: 0.75-1.44, p = 0.82) were significant predictors of ZRF. Procedural safety was not compromised significantly. Conclusions: FURS with FANS is equally safe and effective in the sitting and standing positions. This study provides the impetus to improve FURS ergonomics, especially with the move toward its use in complex and large stones.
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.