Advertisement

World Journal of Urology

, Volume 32, Issue 1, pp 229–232 | Cite as

The use of a ureteral access sheath does not improve stone-free rate after ureteroscopy for upper urinary tract stones

  • Gaetan BerquetEmail author
  • Paul Prunel
  • Grégory Verhoest
  • Romain Mathieu
  • Karim Bensalah
Original Article

Abstract

Purpose

To evaluate the impact of a ureteral access sheath (UAS) on stone-free (SF) rate after flexible ureteroscopy for upper urinary tract stones.

Materials and methods

We retrospectively reviewed 280 patients who underwent flexible ureteroscopy (URS) for upper urinary tract stone between 2009 and 2012. Patients were divided into two groups based on whether a UAS was used (n = 157) or not (n = 123). SF rate was evaluated at one and three months after surgery by abdominal imaging. Quantitative and qualitative variables were compared with Student’s t test and χ2 test, respectively. A logistic regression model was used to determine the predictive factors of SF status.

Results

Stone size was similar in both groups (15.1 vs. 13.7 mm, p = 0.21). SF rates at one and 3 months were comparable in UAS and non-UAS groups (76 vs. 78 % and 86 vs. 87 %, p = 0.88 and 0.89, respectively). Complication rates were similar in both groups (12.7 vs. 12.1 %, p = 0.78). In multivariable analysis, stone size was the only predictive factor of SF rate (p = 0.016).

Conclusion

The routine use of a UAS did not improve SF rate in patients undergoing flexible URS for upper urinary tract calculi.

Keywords

Ureteral access sheath Flexible ureteroscopy Urinary lithiasis Stone-free rate 

References

  1. 1.
    Stern JM, Yiee J, Park S (2007) Safety and efficacy of ureteral access sheaths. J Endourol 21:119–123PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Vanlangendonck R, Landman J (2004) Ureteral access strategies: pro-access sheath. Urol Clin North Am 31:71–81PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Rehman J, Monga M, Landman J et al (2003) Characterization of intrapelvic pressure during ureteropyeloscopy with ureteral access sheaths. Urology 61:713–718PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Kourambas J, Byrne RR, Preminger GM (2001) Does a ureteral access sheath facilitate ureteroscopy? J Urol 165:789–793PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Auge BK, Pietrow PK, Lallas CD et al (2004) Ureteral access sheath provides protection against elevated renal pressures during routine flexible ureteroscopic stone manipulation. J Endourol 18:33–36PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    L’Esperance JO, Ekeruo WO, Scales CD Jr et al (2005) Effect of ureteral access sheath on stone-free rates in patients undergoing ureteroscopic management of renal calculi. Urology 66:252–255PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    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 189:580–584PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Dindo D, Demartines N, Clavien PA (2004) Classification of surgical complications: a new proposal with evaluation in a cohort of 6336 patients and results of a survey. Ann Surg 240:205–213PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Wignall GR, Canales BK, Denstedt JD et al (2008) Minimally invasive approaches to upper urinary tract urolithiasis. Urol Clin North Am 35:441–454PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Chow GK, Patterson DE, Blute ML (2003) JW: Ureteroscopy: effect of technology and technique on clinical practice. J Urol 170:99–102PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Wendt-Nordahl G, Mut T, Krombach P et al (2011) Do new generation flexible ureterorenoscopes offer a higher treatment success than their predecessors? Urol Res 39:185–188PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Breda A, Ogunyemi O, Leppert JT et al (2009) Flexible ureteroscopy and laser lithotripsy for multiple unilateral intrarenal stones. Eur Urol 55:1190–1196PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Preminger GM (2006) Management of lower pole renal calculi: shock wave lithotripsy versus percutaneous nephrolithotomy versus flexible ureteroscopy. Urol Res 34:108–111PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Srisubat A, Potisat S, Lojanapiwat B, et al (2009) Extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL) versus percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL) or retrograde intrarenal surgery (RIRS) for kidney stones. Cochrane Database Syst Rev: CD007044Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Takayasu H, Aso Y (1974) Recent development for pyeloureteroscopy: guide tube method for its introduction into the ureter. J Urol 112:176–178PubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Aboumarzouk OM, Monga M, Kata SG, et al (2012) Flexible ureteroscopy and laser lithotripsy for stones >2 cm: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Endourol 26(10):1257–1263Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Aboumarzouk OM, Somani B and Monga M (2012) Safety and efficacy of ureteroscopic lithotripsy for stone disease in obese patients: a systematic review of the literature. BJU Int 110(8 Part B):E374–380Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Sofer M, Watterson JD, Wollin TA et al (2002) Holmium:YAG laser lithotripsy for upper urinary tract calculi in 598 patients. J Urol 167:31–34PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Hyams ES, Bruhn A, Lipkin M et al (2010) Heterogeneity in the reporting of disease characteristics and treatment outcomes in studies evaluating treatments for nephrolithiasis. J Endourol 24:1411–1414PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Rebuck DA, Macejko A, Bhalani V et al (2011) The natural history of renal stone fragments following ureteroscopy. Urology 77:564–568PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    El-Nahas AR, El-Assmy AM, Madbouly K et al (2006) Predictors of clinical significance of residual fragments after extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy for renal stones. J Endourol 20:870–874PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Buchholz NP, Meier-Padel S, Rutishauser G (1997) Minor residual fragments after extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy: spontaneous clearance or risk factor for recurrent stone formation? J Endourol 11:227–232PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Kang DE, Maloney MM, Haleblian GE et al (2007) Effect of medical management on recurrent stone formation following percutaneous nephrolithotomy. J Urol. 177:1785–1788 discussion 1788–1789PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Abrahams HM, Stoller ML (2004) The argument against the routine use of ureteral access sheaths. Urol Clin North Am 31:83–87PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Lallas CD, Auge BK, Raj GV et al (2002) Laser Doppler flowmetric determination of ureteral blood flow after ureteral access sheath placement. J Endourol 16:583–590PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Delvecchio FC, Auge BK, Brizuela RM et al (2003) Assessment of stricture formation with the ureteral access sheath. Urology. 61:518–522 discussion 522PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Gaetan Berquet
    • 1
    Email author
  • Paul Prunel
    • 1
  • Grégory Verhoest
    • 1
  • Romain Mathieu
    • 1
  • Karim Bensalah
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of UrologyPontchaillou University Hospital, University of Rennes 1RennesFrance

Personalised recommendations