Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

Flow matters 2: How to improve irrigation flow in small-calibre percutaneous procedures—the purging effect

  • Original Article
  • Published:
World Journal of Urology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Introduction

Aim of this study was to investigate whether the combination of high-pressure irrigation inflow combined with simultaneous sensor-controlled suction could improve irrigation turnover without leading to high peak intrarenal pressure in small-calibre percutaneous instruments (SCPI).

M + M

A MIP XS sheath (9.5 Fr. outer diameter and 8.5 Fr. inner diameter) and a 7.5-Fr. nephroscope (3-Fr. irrigation channel; MIP XS by Nagele, Karl Storz, Tuttlingen, Germany) was inserted into the collecting system of a non-perfused cadaveric porcine kidney, an 8-Fr. mono-J catheter was introduced through the ureter. Irrigation was performed using a pressure-controlled, combined irrigation/suction pump (Uromat E.A.S.I., Karl Storz, Tuttlingen, Germany) in either single-flow or continuous-flow (=combination of irrigation and suction) mode. Intrarenal pressure was measured and irrigation fluid turnover was measured by a cystometry catheter inserted trans-parenchymally into the renal pelvis. Pressure changes were recorded by a urodynamic workstation.

Results

Applying pressure-controlled suction, irrigation fluid turnover could be increased by 5 % at an inflow pressure of 75 mmHg (80–84 ml/min) and 15 % at an inflow pressure of 110 mmHg (196–110 ml/min). Suction decreased the intrarenal pressure by 14 % at 75 mmHg (19–14.5 cm H2O) and 28 % at 110 mmHg inflow pressure (37–26.5 cm H2O).

Conclusion

Although combination of pressure irrigation with sensor-controlled suction increases irrigation flow in SCPI, the intrarenal pressure could be reduced with combined suction via a transurethral mono-J catheter. This irrigation method in percutaneous surgery is called purging effect.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Bach T, Netsch C, TR Herrmann et al (2011) Objective assessment of working tool impact on irrigation flow and visibility in flexible ureterorenoscopes. J Endourol 25:1125–1129

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Bader MJ, Gratzke C, Seitz M et al (2011) The “all-seeing needle”: initial results of an optical puncture system confirming access in percutaneous nephrolithotomy. Eur Urol 59:1054–1059

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Ganpule AP, Bhattu AS, Desai M (2014) PCNL in the twenty-first century: role of Microperc, Miniperc, and Ultraminiperc. World J Urol [Epub ahead of print]

  4. Guo HQ, Shi HL, Li XG et al (2008) Relationship between the intrapelvic perfusion pressure in minimally invasive percutaneous nephrolithotomy and postoperative recovery. Zhonghua Wai Ke Za Zhi 46:52–54

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Gutierrez J, Smith A, Geavlete P, Shah H, Kural AR, de Sio M, Sesmero JHA, Hoznek A, de la Rosette J; CROES PCNL Study Group (2013) Urinary tract infections and post-operative fever in percutaneous nephrolithotomy. World J Urol 31:1135–1140. doi:10.1007/s00345-012-0836-y

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Kawahara T, Ito H, Terao H et al (2012) Preoperative stenting for ureteroscopic lithotripsy for a large renal stone. Int J Urol 19:881–885

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Kourambas J, Byrne RR, Preminger GM (2001) Does a ureteral access sheath facilitate ureteroscopy? J Urol 165:789–793

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Kruck S, Anastasiadis AG, Gakis G et al (2011) Flow matters: irrigation flow differs in flexible ureteroscopes of the newest generation. Urol Res 39:483–486

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Kukreja R, Desai M, Patel S et al (2004) Factors affecting blood loss during percutaneous nephrolithotomy: prospective study. J Endourol 18:715–722

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Kyriazis I, Panagopoulos V, Kallidonis P et al (2014) Complications in percutaneous nephrolithotomy. World J Urol. doi:10.1007/s00345-014-1400-8

  11. Liu C, Zhang X, Liu Y, Wang P (2013) Prevention and treatment of septic shock following mini-percutaneous nephrolithotomy: a single-center retrospective study of 834 cases. World J Urol 31(6):1593–1597. doi:10.1007/s00345-012-1002-2

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Nagele U, Anastasiadis AG, Stenzl A et al (2012) Radical cystectomy with orthotopic neobladder for invasive bladder cancer: a critical analysis of long-term oncological, functional, and quality of life results. World J Urol 30:725–732

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Nagele U, Horstmann M, Sievert KD et al (2007) A newly designed amplatz sheath decreases intrapelvic irrigation pressure during mini-percutaneous nephrolitholapaxy: an in vitro pressure-measurement and microscopic study. J Endourol 21:1113–1116

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Traxer O, Thomas A (2013) Prospective evaluation and classification of ureteral wall injuries resulting from insertion of a ureteral access sheath during retrograde intrarenal surgery. J Urol 189:580–584

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Sa Troxel, Rk Low (2002) Renal intrapelvic pressure during percutaneous nephrolithotomy and its correlation with the development of postoperative fever. J Urol 168:1348–1351

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Yamaguchi A, Skolarikos A, Buchholz NPN et al (2011) Operating times and bleeding complications in percutaneous nephrolithotomy: a comparison of tract dilation methods in 5,537 patients in the Clinical Research Office of the Endourological Society Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy Global Study. J Endourol 25:933–939

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Zhong W, Zeng G, Wu K et al (2008) Does a smaller tract in percutaneous nephrolithotomy contribute to high renal pelvic pressure and postoperative fever? J Endourol 22:2147–2151

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Conflict of interest

None of the authors have conflict of interest concerning the data published in this article.

Ethical standard

The authors declare that the present study has been performed in accordance with the ethical standards laid down in the 1964 Declaration of Helsinki and its later amendments.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Udo Nagele.

Additional information

This is a paper from the Training and Research in Urological Surgical Therapy (T.R.U.S.T.) group.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Nagele, U., Walcher, U., Bader, M. et al. Flow matters 2: How to improve irrigation flow in small-calibre percutaneous procedures—the purging effect. World J Urol 33, 1607–1611 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-015-1486-7

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-015-1486-7

Keywords

Navigation