在逆行肾内手术中重复使用一次性输尿管镜:一个新概念的出现?

IF 0.9 Q3 UROLOGY & NEPHROLOGY
Horacio Sanguinetti, Juan Guillermo Ruiz, Maximiliano Lopez Silva, Norberto Bernardo
{"title":"在逆行肾内手术中重复使用一次性输尿管镜:一个新概念的出现?","authors":"Horacio Sanguinetti, Juan Guillermo Ruiz, Maximiliano Lopez Silva, Norberto Bernardo","doi":"10.4103/iju.iju_162_25","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Retrograde intrarenal surgery (RIRS) for renal lithiasis is widely used, with single-use ureteroscopes offering an excellent option. However, their high cost poses a challenge, prompting consideration of reusing disposable instruments. This study aims to compare stone-free rates (SFR) and complications between reprocessed disposable ureteroscopes and new ones in a multicenter cohort.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This prospective, observational, multicenter study included patients who underwent RIRS between May 2022 and May 2023 at three centers in Argentina. Patients were divided into two groups: Group 1 used a brand new disposable ureteroscope and Group 2 used a reprocessed disposable ureteroscope. Stone size, location, stone-free rate, postoperative complications, and subjective evaluations of deflection and vision were analyzed.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Seventy-seven patients were included: 21 in Group 1 and 56 in Group 2. The average stone size was 10.9 mm in Group 1 and 8.6 mm in Group 2 (<i>P</i> = 0.0188). Stone location in the renal pelvis was 42% in Group 1 and 25% in Group 2 (<i>P</i> = 0.406). SFR were 71.4% in Group 1 and 73.2% in Group 2 (<i>P</i> = 0.999). No differences were found regarding the subjective assessment of vision and deflection as evaluated by the surgeons. Postoperative urinary tract infections occurred in 9.5% of Group 1 and 16% of Group 2 (<i>P</i> = 0.717).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Despite the larger stone size in Group 1, the stone-free rate and postoperative infection rates were similar between both groups. Reprocessing disposable instruments does not appear to affect the effectiveness or infection rate of RIRS.</p>","PeriodicalId":47352,"journal":{"name":"Indian Journal of Urology","volume":"41 3","pages":"216-219"},"PeriodicalIF":0.9000,"publicationDate":"2025-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12312838/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Reused disposable ureteroscopes in retrograde intrarenal surgery: A new concept arises?\",\"authors\":\"Horacio Sanguinetti, Juan Guillermo Ruiz, Maximiliano Lopez Silva, Norberto Bernardo\",\"doi\":\"10.4103/iju.iju_162_25\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Retrograde intrarenal surgery (RIRS) for renal lithiasis is widely used, with single-use ureteroscopes offering an excellent option. However, their high cost poses a challenge, prompting consideration of reusing disposable instruments. This study aims to compare stone-free rates (SFR) and complications between reprocessed disposable ureteroscopes and new ones in a multicenter cohort.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This prospective, observational, multicenter study included patients who underwent RIRS between May 2022 and May 2023 at three centers in Argentina. Patients were divided into two groups: Group 1 used a brand new disposable ureteroscope and Group 2 used a reprocessed disposable ureteroscope. Stone size, location, stone-free rate, postoperative complications, and subjective evaluations of deflection and vision were analyzed.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Seventy-seven patients were included: 21 in Group 1 and 56 in Group 2. The average stone size was 10.9 mm in Group 1 and 8.6 mm in Group 2 (<i>P</i> = 0.0188). Stone location in the renal pelvis was 42% in Group 1 and 25% in Group 2 (<i>P</i> = 0.406). SFR were 71.4% in Group 1 and 73.2% in Group 2 (<i>P</i> = 0.999). No differences were found regarding the subjective assessment of vision and deflection as evaluated by the surgeons. Postoperative urinary tract infections occurred in 9.5% of Group 1 and 16% of Group 2 (<i>P</i> = 0.717).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Despite the larger stone size in Group 1, the stone-free rate and postoperative infection rates were similar between both groups. Reprocessing disposable instruments does not appear to affect the effectiveness or infection rate of RIRS.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":47352,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Indian Journal of Urology\",\"volume\":\"41 3\",\"pages\":\"216-219\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.9000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-07-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12312838/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Indian Journal of Urology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.4103/iju.iju_162_25\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"UROLOGY & NEPHROLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Indian Journal of Urology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4103/iju.iju_162_25","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"UROLOGY & NEPHROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

导读:逆行肾内手术(RIRS)广泛应用于肾结石,一次性输尿管镜提供了一个很好的选择。然而,它们的高成本带来了挑战,促使人们考虑重复使用一次性仪器。本研究旨在在多中心队列中比较再加工一次性输尿管镜和新输尿管镜的无结石率(SFR)和并发症。方法:这项前瞻性、观察性、多中心研究纳入了2022年5月至2023年5月在阿根廷三个中心接受RIRS治疗的患者。患者分为两组:1组使用全新的一次性输尿管镜,2组使用重新加工的一次性输尿管镜。分析结石大小、位置、结石游离率、术后并发症、偏转和视力主观评价。结果:共纳入77例患者:1组21例,2组56例。组1平均结石大小为10.9 mm,组2平均结石大小为8.6 mm (P = 0.0188)。组1肾结石发生率为42%,组2肾结石发生率为25% (P = 0.406)。组1的SFR为71.4%,组2为73.2% (P = 0.999)。在外科医生评估的主观视力和偏斜方面没有发现差异。组1术后尿路感染发生率9.5%,组2术后尿路感染发生率16% (P = 0.717)。结论:尽管第一组结石较大,但两组结石清除率和术后感染率相似。一次性器械的再处理似乎不影响RIRS的有效性或感染率。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Reused disposable ureteroscopes in retrograde intrarenal surgery: A new concept arises?

Introduction: Retrograde intrarenal surgery (RIRS) for renal lithiasis is widely used, with single-use ureteroscopes offering an excellent option. However, their high cost poses a challenge, prompting consideration of reusing disposable instruments. This study aims to compare stone-free rates (SFR) and complications between reprocessed disposable ureteroscopes and new ones in a multicenter cohort.

Methods: This prospective, observational, multicenter study included patients who underwent RIRS between May 2022 and May 2023 at three centers in Argentina. Patients were divided into two groups: Group 1 used a brand new disposable ureteroscope and Group 2 used a reprocessed disposable ureteroscope. Stone size, location, stone-free rate, postoperative complications, and subjective evaluations of deflection and vision were analyzed.

Results: Seventy-seven patients were included: 21 in Group 1 and 56 in Group 2. The average stone size was 10.9 mm in Group 1 and 8.6 mm in Group 2 (P = 0.0188). Stone location in the renal pelvis was 42% in Group 1 and 25% in Group 2 (P = 0.406). SFR were 71.4% in Group 1 and 73.2% in Group 2 (P = 0.999). No differences were found regarding the subjective assessment of vision and deflection as evaluated by the surgeons. Postoperative urinary tract infections occurred in 9.5% of Group 1 and 16% of Group 2 (P = 0.717).

Conclusions: Despite the larger stone size in Group 1, the stone-free rate and postoperative infection rates were similar between both groups. Reprocessing disposable instruments does not appear to affect the effectiveness or infection rate of RIRS.

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
Indian Journal of Urology
Indian Journal of Urology UROLOGY & NEPHROLOGY-
CiteScore
1.90
自引率
0.00%
发文量
62
审稿时长
33 weeks
期刊介绍: Indian Journal of Urology-IJU (ISSN 0970-1591) is official publication of the Urological Society of India. The journal is published Quarterly. Bibliographic listings: The journal is indexed with Abstracts on Hygiene and Communicable Diseases, CAB Abstracts, Caspur, DOAJ, EBSCO Publishing’s Electronic Databases, Excerpta Medica / EMBASE, Expanded Academic ASAP, Genamics JournalSeek, Global Health, Google Scholar, Health & Wellness Research Center, Health Reference Center Academic, Hinari, Index Copernicus, IndMed, OpenJGate, PubMed, Pubmed Central, Scimago Journal Ranking, SCOLOAR, SCOPUS, SIIC databases, SNEMB, Tropical Diseases Bulletin, Ulrich’s International Periodical Directory
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信