使用一次性或可重复使用作用域的RIRS:有区别吗?多中心FLEXOR研究结果。

IF 2.6 4区 医学 Q2 UROLOGY & NEPHROLOGY
Vineet Gauhar, Chu Ann Chai, Ben H Chew, Abhishek Singh, Daniele Castellani, Thomas Tailly, Esteban Emiliani, William Ong Lay Keat, Deepak Ragoori, Mohamed Amine Lakmichi, Jeremy Yuen-Chun Teoh, Olivier Traxer, Bhaskar Kumar Somani
{"title":"使用一次性或可重复使用作用域的RIRS:有区别吗?多中心FLEXOR研究结果。","authors":"Vineet Gauhar,&nbsp;Chu Ann Chai,&nbsp;Ben H Chew,&nbsp;Abhishek Singh,&nbsp;Daniele Castellani,&nbsp;Thomas Tailly,&nbsp;Esteban Emiliani,&nbsp;William Ong Lay Keat,&nbsp;Deepak Ragoori,&nbsp;Mohamed Amine Lakmichi,&nbsp;Jeremy Yuen-Chun Teoh,&nbsp;Olivier Traxer,&nbsp;Bhaskar Kumar Somani","doi":"10.1177/17562872231158072","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>With several single-use ureteroscopes now available, our aim was to analyze and compare data obtained globally from high-volume centers using both disposable and reusable flexible ureteroscopes and see if indeed in real-world practice either scope has a distinct advantage.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Retrospective analysis was performed on the FLEXOR registry, which was created as a TOWER group (Team of Worldwide Endourological Researchers, research wing of the Endourological Society) endeavor. Patients who underwent retrograde intrarenal surgery (RIRS) for renal stones from January 2018 to August 2021 were enrolled from 20 centers globally. A total of 6663 patients whose data were available for analysis were divided into Group 1 (Reusable scopes, 4808 patients) <i>versus</i> Group 2 (Disposable scopes, 1855 patients).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The age and gender distribution were similar in both groups. The mean stone size was 11.8 mm and 9.6 mm in Groups 2 and 1, respectively (<i>p</i> < 0.001). Group 2 had more patients with >2 cm stones, lower pole stones and of higher Hounsfield unit. Thulium fiber laser (TFL) was used more in Group 2 (<i>p</i> < 0.001). Patients in Group 2 had a slightly higher stone-free rate (SFR) (78.22%) and a lower number of residual fragments (RFs) compared with Group 1 (<i>p</i> < 0.001). The need for further treatments for RF and overall complications was comparable between groups. On multivariate analysis, overall complications were more likely to occur in elderly patients, larger stone size, lower pole stones, and were also more when using disposable scopes with longer operative time. RFs were significantly higher (<i>p</i> < 0.001) for lower pole, larger, harder, multiple stones and in elderly.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Our real-world practice observations suggest that urologists choose disposable scopes for bigger, lower pole, and harder stones, and it does indeed help in improving the single-stage SFR if used correctly, with the appropriate lasers and lasing techniques in expert hands.</p>","PeriodicalId":23010,"journal":{"name":"Therapeutic Advances in Urology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.6000,"publicationDate":"2023-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub/pmc/oa_pdf/81/2e/10.1177_17562872231158072.PMC10009018.pdf","citationCount":"3","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"RIRS with disposable or reusable scopes: does it make a difference? Results from the multicenter FLEXOR study.\",\"authors\":\"Vineet Gauhar,&nbsp;Chu Ann Chai,&nbsp;Ben H Chew,&nbsp;Abhishek Singh,&nbsp;Daniele Castellani,&nbsp;Thomas Tailly,&nbsp;Esteban Emiliani,&nbsp;William Ong Lay Keat,&nbsp;Deepak Ragoori,&nbsp;Mohamed Amine Lakmichi,&nbsp;Jeremy Yuen-Chun Teoh,&nbsp;Olivier Traxer,&nbsp;Bhaskar Kumar Somani\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/17562872231158072\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>With several single-use ureteroscopes now available, our aim was to analyze and compare data obtained globally from high-volume centers using both disposable and reusable flexible ureteroscopes and see if indeed in real-world practice either scope has a distinct advantage.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Retrospective analysis was performed on the FLEXOR registry, which was created as a TOWER group (Team of Worldwide Endourological Researchers, research wing of the Endourological Society) endeavor. Patients who underwent retrograde intrarenal surgery (RIRS) for renal stones from January 2018 to August 2021 were enrolled from 20 centers globally. A total of 6663 patients whose data were available for analysis were divided into Group 1 (Reusable scopes, 4808 patients) <i>versus</i> Group 2 (Disposable scopes, 1855 patients).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The age and gender distribution were similar in both groups. The mean stone size was 11.8 mm and 9.6 mm in Groups 2 and 1, respectively (<i>p</i> < 0.001). Group 2 had more patients with >2 cm stones, lower pole stones and of higher Hounsfield unit. Thulium fiber laser (TFL) was used more in Group 2 (<i>p</i> < 0.001). Patients in Group 2 had a slightly higher stone-free rate (SFR) (78.22%) and a lower number of residual fragments (RFs) compared with Group 1 (<i>p</i> < 0.001). The need for further treatments for RF and overall complications was comparable between groups. On multivariate analysis, overall complications were more likely to occur in elderly patients, larger stone size, lower pole stones, and were also more when using disposable scopes with longer operative time. RFs were significantly higher (<i>p</i> < 0.001) for lower pole, larger, harder, multiple stones and in elderly.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Our real-world practice observations suggest that urologists choose disposable scopes for bigger, lower pole, and harder stones, and it does indeed help in improving the single-stage SFR if used correctly, with the appropriate lasers and lasing techniques in expert hands.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":23010,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Therapeutic Advances in Urology\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub/pmc/oa_pdf/81/2e/10.1177_17562872231158072.PMC10009018.pdf\",\"citationCount\":\"3\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Therapeutic Advances in Urology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/17562872231158072\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"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":"Therapeutic Advances in Urology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/17562872231158072","RegionNum":4,"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: 3

摘要

导读:现在有几种一次性输尿管镜可用,我们的目的是分析和比较全球大容量中心使用一次性和可重复使用的柔性输尿管镜获得的数据,看看在现实世界的实践中,这两种输尿管镜是否确实具有明显的优势。方法:对FLEXOR注册表进行回顾性分析,该注册表是由TOWER组(世界泌尿系统研究小组,泌尿系统学会的研究部门)创建的。2018年1月至2021年8月,来自全球20个中心的肾结石患者接受了逆行肾内手术(RIRS)。共有6663例可用于分析的患者被分为1组(可重复使用的镜架,4808例)和2组(一次性镜架,1855例)。结果:两组患者年龄、性别分布相似。2组和1组的平均结石大小分别为11.8 mm和9.6 mm (2 cm结石、下极结石和高Hounsfield单位结石)。结论:我们的现实世界实践观察表明,泌尿科医生选择一次性镜治疗更大、更低极、更硬的结石,如果使用正确,在专家的指导下使用适当的激光和激光技术,它确实有助于改善单期SFR。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

RIRS with disposable or reusable scopes: does it make a difference? Results from the multicenter FLEXOR study.

RIRS with disposable or reusable scopes: does it make a difference? Results from the multicenter FLEXOR study.

RIRS with disposable or reusable scopes: does it make a difference? Results from the multicenter FLEXOR study.

RIRS with disposable or reusable scopes: does it make a difference? Results from the multicenter FLEXOR study.

Introduction: With several single-use ureteroscopes now available, our aim was to analyze and compare data obtained globally from high-volume centers using both disposable and reusable flexible ureteroscopes and see if indeed in real-world practice either scope has a distinct advantage.

Methods: Retrospective analysis was performed on the FLEXOR registry, which was created as a TOWER group (Team of Worldwide Endourological Researchers, research wing of the Endourological Society) endeavor. Patients who underwent retrograde intrarenal surgery (RIRS) for renal stones from January 2018 to August 2021 were enrolled from 20 centers globally. A total of 6663 patients whose data were available for analysis were divided into Group 1 (Reusable scopes, 4808 patients) versus Group 2 (Disposable scopes, 1855 patients).

Results: The age and gender distribution were similar in both groups. The mean stone size was 11.8 mm and 9.6 mm in Groups 2 and 1, respectively (p < 0.001). Group 2 had more patients with >2 cm stones, lower pole stones and of higher Hounsfield unit. Thulium fiber laser (TFL) was used more in Group 2 (p < 0.001). Patients in Group 2 had a slightly higher stone-free rate (SFR) (78.22%) and a lower number of residual fragments (RFs) compared with Group 1 (p < 0.001). The need for further treatments for RF and overall complications was comparable between groups. On multivariate analysis, overall complications were more likely to occur in elderly patients, larger stone size, lower pole stones, and were also more when using disposable scopes with longer operative time. RFs were significantly higher (p < 0.001) for lower pole, larger, harder, multiple stones and in elderly.

Conclusion: Our real-world practice observations suggest that urologists choose disposable scopes for bigger, lower pole, and harder stones, and it does indeed help in improving the single-stage SFR if used correctly, with the appropriate lasers and lasing techniques in expert hands.

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
CiteScore
3.70
自引率
0.00%
发文量
39
审稿时长
10 weeks
期刊介绍: Therapeutic Advances in Urology delivers the highest quality peer-reviewed articles, reviews, and scholarly comment on pioneering efforts and innovative studies across all areas of urology. The journal has a strong clinical and pharmacological focus and is aimed at clinicians and researchers in urology, providing a forum in print and online for publishing the highest quality articles in this area. The editors welcome articles of current interest across all areas of urology, including treatment of urological disorders, with a focus on emerging pharmacological therapies.
×
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