{"title":"逆行肾内手术联合柔性真空辅助输尿管通路鞘与传统输尿管通路鞘治疗1- 2cm下肾盏肾结石:一项前瞻性、随机对照研究。","authors":"Yi-Qing Liu, Yue Li, Ji-Dong Guo, Meng-Jun Dai, Qing-Lai Tang, Xing-Zhu Zhou, Rong-Zhen Tao","doi":"10.62347/KMAX4493","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>To evaluate the efficacy and safety of retrograde intrarenal surgery (RIRS) combined with a flexible vacuum-assisted ureteral access sheath (FV-UAS) in patients with 1-2 cm lower calyceal renal stones.</p><p><strong>Patients and methods: </strong>In total, 203 patients with calyceal stones were prospectively randomized into two groups (Clinical trial registration number: ChiCTR2200056402). Of them, 101 patients were assigned to the FV-UAS group and 102 to the traditional UAS group (control). The primary outcome was the stone-free rate (SFR) on postoperative day 1 and in the 4th week. Secondary outcomes included operative time, length of postoperative hospital stay, hospitalization costs, and procedure-related complications.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>No significant differences were noted in baseline demographics and preoperative clinical characteristics between the two groups (all <i>P</i> > 0.05). Postoperative data indicated that the SFRs on both postoperative day 1 and week 4 were significantly higher in the FV-UAS group than in the traditional UAS group (86.1% vs. 70.6%, <i>P</i> = 0.007; 92.1% vs. 82.4%, <i>P</i> = 0.038, respectively). Hospitalization costs were also lower in the FV-UAS group than in the traditional UAS group ($2524.1 vs. $2635.4, <i>P</i> < 0.001). Furthermore, the incidence rates of postoperative fever, perirenal hematoma, and urosepsis were significantly lower in the FV-UAS group than in the traditional UAS group (fever: 2.0% vs. 8.8%, <i>P</i> = 0.031; hematoma: 0.0% vs. 4.9%, <i>P</i> = 0.024; urosepsis: 1.0% vs. 7.8%, <i>P</i> = 0.018).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Our findings suggest that the combination of FV-UAS and RIRS offers a promising treatment approach for 1-2 cm lower calyceal renal stones. This method results in higher SFRs, lower complication rates, and reduced hospitalization costs, making it a valuable technique for clinical adoption.</p>","PeriodicalId":7438,"journal":{"name":"American journal of clinical and experimental urology","volume":"13 4","pages":"256-264"},"PeriodicalIF":1.4000,"publicationDate":"2025-08-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12444388/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Retrograde intrarenal surgery combined with flexible vacuum-assisted ureteral access sheath versus traditional ureteral access sheath for 1-2 cm lower calyceal renal stones: a prospective, randomized controlled study.\",\"authors\":\"Yi-Qing Liu, Yue Li, Ji-Dong Guo, Meng-Jun Dai, Qing-Lai Tang, Xing-Zhu Zhou, Rong-Zhen Tao\",\"doi\":\"10.62347/KMAX4493\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>To evaluate the efficacy and safety of retrograde intrarenal surgery (RIRS) combined with a flexible vacuum-assisted ureteral access sheath (FV-UAS) in patients with 1-2 cm lower calyceal renal stones.</p><p><strong>Patients and methods: </strong>In total, 203 patients with calyceal stones were prospectively randomized into two groups (Clinical trial registration number: ChiCTR2200056402). Of them, 101 patients were assigned to the FV-UAS group and 102 to the traditional UAS group (control). The primary outcome was the stone-free rate (SFR) on postoperative day 1 and in the 4th week. Secondary outcomes included operative time, length of postoperative hospital stay, hospitalization costs, and procedure-related complications.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>No significant differences were noted in baseline demographics and preoperative clinical characteristics between the two groups (all <i>P</i> > 0.05). Postoperative data indicated that the SFRs on both postoperative day 1 and week 4 were significantly higher in the FV-UAS group than in the traditional UAS group (86.1% vs. 70.6%, <i>P</i> = 0.007; 92.1% vs. 82.4%, <i>P</i> = 0.038, respectively). Hospitalization costs were also lower in the FV-UAS group than in the traditional UAS group ($2524.1 vs. $2635.4, <i>P</i> < 0.001). Furthermore, the incidence rates of postoperative fever, perirenal hematoma, and urosepsis were significantly lower in the FV-UAS group than in the traditional UAS group (fever: 2.0% vs. 8.8%, <i>P</i> = 0.031; hematoma: 0.0% vs. 4.9%, <i>P</i> = 0.024; urosepsis: 1.0% vs. 7.8%, <i>P</i> = 0.018).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Our findings suggest that the combination of FV-UAS and RIRS offers a promising treatment approach for 1-2 cm lower calyceal renal stones. This method results in higher SFRs, lower complication rates, and reduced hospitalization costs, making it a valuable technique for clinical adoption.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":7438,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"American journal of clinical and experimental urology\",\"volume\":\"13 4\",\"pages\":\"256-264\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-08-15\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12444388/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"American journal of clinical and experimental urology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.62347/KMAX4493\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2025/1/1 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"eCollection\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"UROLOGY & NEPHROLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"American journal of clinical and experimental urology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.62347/KMAX4493","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"UROLOGY & NEPHROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
Retrograde intrarenal surgery combined with flexible vacuum-assisted ureteral access sheath versus traditional ureteral access sheath for 1-2 cm lower calyceal renal stones: a prospective, randomized controlled study.
Objective: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of retrograde intrarenal surgery (RIRS) combined with a flexible vacuum-assisted ureteral access sheath (FV-UAS) in patients with 1-2 cm lower calyceal renal stones.
Patients and methods: In total, 203 patients with calyceal stones were prospectively randomized into two groups (Clinical trial registration number: ChiCTR2200056402). Of them, 101 patients were assigned to the FV-UAS group and 102 to the traditional UAS group (control). The primary outcome was the stone-free rate (SFR) on postoperative day 1 and in the 4th week. Secondary outcomes included operative time, length of postoperative hospital stay, hospitalization costs, and procedure-related complications.
Results: No significant differences were noted in baseline demographics and preoperative clinical characteristics between the two groups (all P > 0.05). Postoperative data indicated that the SFRs on both postoperative day 1 and week 4 were significantly higher in the FV-UAS group than in the traditional UAS group (86.1% vs. 70.6%, P = 0.007; 92.1% vs. 82.4%, P = 0.038, respectively). Hospitalization costs were also lower in the FV-UAS group than in the traditional UAS group ($2524.1 vs. $2635.4, P < 0.001). Furthermore, the incidence rates of postoperative fever, perirenal hematoma, and urosepsis were significantly lower in the FV-UAS group than in the traditional UAS group (fever: 2.0% vs. 8.8%, P = 0.031; hematoma: 0.0% vs. 4.9%, P = 0.024; urosepsis: 1.0% vs. 7.8%, P = 0.018).
Conclusions: Our findings suggest that the combination of FV-UAS and RIRS offers a promising treatment approach for 1-2 cm lower calyceal renal stones. This method results in higher SFRs, lower complication rates, and reduced hospitalization costs, making it a valuable technique for clinical adoption.