The University of Southampton
University of Southampton Institutional Repository

Outcomes of flexible ureterorenoscopy and laser fragmentation for renal stones: comparison between digital and conventional ureteroscope

Outcomes of flexible ureterorenoscopy and laser fragmentation for renal stones: comparison between digital and conventional ureteroscope
Outcomes of flexible ureterorenoscopy and laser fragmentation for renal stones: comparison between digital and conventional ureteroscope

Objective: to compare the outcomes of flexible ureterorenoscopy and lasertripsy (FURS) using digital and conventional FURS for kidney stones.

Methods: from September 2007 to April 2011, 118 patients underwent FURS (by the same surgeon). The outcomes were compared between equal numbers of procedures (59 each) using a conventional flexible ureterorenoscope (C-FURS; Olympus URF-P5) and a digital flexible ureterorenoscope (D-FURS; Olympus URF-V). Although the deflection, working channel, and field view are similar in both, the initial and terminal diameter is 8.4F and 9.9F and 6.9F and 8.4F for the D-FURS and C-FURS, respectively. The mean stone fragmentation time was calculated by the size per operative time. The preoperative, operative, and postoperative data were retrospectively analyzed and compared.

Results: the patient demographics were comparable. The mean stone size was 12.8 and 12 mm in the C-FURS and D-FURS groups, respectively. The initial assessment of the entire pyelocaliceal system was possible in 58 of 59 cases (98%) in the C-FURS group and 56 of 59 cases (94%) in the D-FURS group. The mean operative time was significantly longer in the C-FURS group (53.8 ± 15.2 minutes vs 44.5 ± 14.9 minutes). The overall stone-free rate 1 month after the procedure was 86% in the C-FURS group and 88% in the D-FURS group.

Conclusions: although on comparison, the D-FURS had slightly limited maneuverability, comparable success rates can be achieved with both conventional and digital ureteroscopes. D-FURSs significantly reduced the operative time compared with C-FURSs.

Adult, Female, Humans, Image Processing, Computer-Assisted, Kidney, Kidney Calculi, Lithotripsy, Laser, Male, Postoperative Period, Retrospective Studies, Time Factors, Treatment Outcome, Ureteroscopes, Ureteroscopy, Comparative Study, Journal Article, Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
0090-4295
1017-1019
Somani, Bhaskar K
ab5fd1ce-02df-4b88-b25e-8ece396335d9
Al-Qahtani, Saeed M
53ed794e-428f-4384-a2dc-95ac31782537
de Medina, Sixtina Diez Gil
41ea03e7-0274-439b-ab9f-ddf4c4ed0672
Traxer, Olivier
2fa78817-b6f8-4f00-b389-c9c9ddbd01f3
Somani, Bhaskar K
ab5fd1ce-02df-4b88-b25e-8ece396335d9
Al-Qahtani, Saeed M
53ed794e-428f-4384-a2dc-95ac31782537
de Medina, Sixtina Diez Gil
41ea03e7-0274-439b-ab9f-ddf4c4ed0672
Traxer, Olivier
2fa78817-b6f8-4f00-b389-c9c9ddbd01f3

Somani, Bhaskar K, Al-Qahtani, Saeed M, de Medina, Sixtina Diez Gil and Traxer, Olivier (2013) Outcomes of flexible ureterorenoscopy and laser fragmentation for renal stones: comparison between digital and conventional ureteroscope. Urology, 82 (5), 1017-1019. (doi:10.1016/j.urology.2013.07.017).

Record type: Article

Abstract

Objective: to compare the outcomes of flexible ureterorenoscopy and lasertripsy (FURS) using digital and conventional FURS for kidney stones.

Methods: from September 2007 to April 2011, 118 patients underwent FURS (by the same surgeon). The outcomes were compared between equal numbers of procedures (59 each) using a conventional flexible ureterorenoscope (C-FURS; Olympus URF-P5) and a digital flexible ureterorenoscope (D-FURS; Olympus URF-V). Although the deflection, working channel, and field view are similar in both, the initial and terminal diameter is 8.4F and 9.9F and 6.9F and 8.4F for the D-FURS and C-FURS, respectively. The mean stone fragmentation time was calculated by the size per operative time. The preoperative, operative, and postoperative data were retrospectively analyzed and compared.

Results: the patient demographics were comparable. The mean stone size was 12.8 and 12 mm in the C-FURS and D-FURS groups, respectively. The initial assessment of the entire pyelocaliceal system was possible in 58 of 59 cases (98%) in the C-FURS group and 56 of 59 cases (94%) in the D-FURS group. The mean operative time was significantly longer in the C-FURS group (53.8 ± 15.2 minutes vs 44.5 ± 14.9 minutes). The overall stone-free rate 1 month after the procedure was 86% in the C-FURS group and 88% in the D-FURS group.

Conclusions: although on comparison, the D-FURS had slightly limited maneuverability, comparable success rates can be achieved with both conventional and digital ureteroscopes. D-FURSs significantly reduced the operative time compared with C-FURSs.

Full text not available from this repository.

More information

Accepted/In Press date: 10 July 2013
e-pub ahead of print date: 3 September 2013
Published date: November 2013
Additional Information: Copyright © 2013 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Adult, Female, Humans, Image Processing, Computer-Assisted, Kidney, Kidney Calculi, Lithotripsy, Laser, Male, Postoperative Period, Retrospective Studies, Time Factors, Treatment Outcome, Ureteroscopes, Ureteroscopy, Comparative Study, Journal Article, Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't

Identifiers

Local EPrints ID: 419109
URI: https://eprints.soton.ac.uk/id/eprint/419109
ISSN: 0090-4295
PURE UUID: d1cfa111-60da-4cb1-af45-62163bc26568

Catalogue record

Date deposited: 05 Apr 2018 16:30
Last modified: 13 Mar 2019 18:44

Export record

Altmetrics

Download statistics

Downloads from ePrints over the past year. Other digital versions may also be available to download e.g. from the publisher's website.

View more statistics

Atom RSS 1.0 RSS 2.0

Contact ePrints Soton: eprints@soton.ac.uk

ePrints Soton supports OAI 2.0 with a base URL of https://eprints.soton.ac.uk/cgi/oai2

This repository has been built using EPrints software, developed at the University of Southampton, but available to everyone to use.

We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website. If you continue without changing your settings, we will assume that you are happy to receive cookies on the University of Southampton website.

×