Comparison of suctioning and traditional ureteral access sheath during flexible ureteroscopy in the treatment of renal stones

  • Zewu Zhu
  • Yu Cui
  • Feng Zeng
  • Yang Li
  • Zhiyong Chen
  • Chen HequnEmail author
Original Article



To compare the efficiency and safety of suctioning ureteral access sheath (UAS) and traditional UAS during flexible ureteroscopy (FURS) for treatment of renal stones.


Between January 2015 and December 2017, 165 patients who had renal stones successfully underwent FURS with suctioning UAS created by connecting a channel on the tail of the suctioning UAS to a vacuum device. The outcomes of these patients were compared with those of 165 patients undergoing FURS with traditional UAS using a 1:1 scenario matched-pair analysis. The matching parameters were age, gender and stone burden.


The baseline characteristics were homogeneous between the two groups. The suctioning UAS group had significantly higher SFR one day postoperatively (82.4% vs. 71.5%; P = 0.02), but SFR 1 month postoperatively was comparable in the two groups (P = 0.13). The incidence of overall complications was significantly higher in the traditional UAS group (24.8% vs 11.5%; P < 0.001). Regarding individual complications, the traditional UAS group was associated with a significantly higher incidence of fever (13.9% vs 5.5%; P = 0.009) and urosepsis requiring only additional antibiotics (6.7% vs 1.8%; P = 0.029). No significant difference was noted in the incidence of septic shock, hematuria, steinstrasse or ureteral stricture. The suctioning UAS group had significantly shorter operative time (49.7 + 16.3 min vs. 57.0 ± 14.0 min; P < 0.001).


Compared to traditional UAS during FURS for treating renal stones, suctioning UAS had the advantages of higher SFR 1 day postoperatively, a lower incidence of infectious complications and a shorter operative time. Further well-designed studies are required to confirm the results.


Renal stone Flexible ureteroscopy Ureteral access sheath 



We would like to thank the National Natural Science Foundation of China, the Nature Science Foundation of Hunan Province, and the Key Research and Development Projects of the Hunan Science and Technology Department for providing funding for this study.

Author contributions

ZZ: project development, data collection and manuscript writing. YC: data collection and analysis. FZ: data collection. YL: data collection. ZC: data analysis. CH: project development.


Funding was provided by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (81770705 to Hequn Chen), the Nature Science Foundation of Hunan Province, China (2017JJ2395 to Yang Li) and Key Research and Development Projects of the Hunan Science and Technology Department (2016JC2041 to Hequn Chen).

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.

Informed consent

Written informed consent to surgical procedures and to the publication of clinical data on the condition of anonymity was obtained preoperatively from all included patients. The study was approved by the Ethics Committee of the Xiangya Hospital of Central South University (proof number: 201806889).


  1. 1.
    Desai M, Sun Y, Buchholz N et al (2017) Treatment selection for urolithiasis: percutaneous nephrolithotomy, ureteroscopy, shock wave lithotripsy, and active monitoring. World J Urol 35:1395–1399. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Berardinelli F, De Francesco P, Marchioni M et al (2016) Infective complications after retrograde intrarenal surgery: a new standardized classification system. Int Urol Nephrol 48:1757–1762. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Deng X, Song L, Xie D et al (2016) A novel flexible ureteroscopy with intelligent control of renal pelvic pressure: an initial experience of 93 cases. J Endourol 30:1067–1072. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    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 18:33–36. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Rehman J, Monga M, Landman J et al (2003) Characterization of intrapelvic pressure during ureteropyeloscopy with ureteral access sheaths. Urology 61:713–718CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Zhong W, Leto G, Wang L, Zeng G (2015) Systemic inflammatory response syndrome after flexible ureteroscopic lithotripsy: a study of risk factors. J Endourol 29:25–28. CrossRefGoogle 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 189:580–584. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Lallas CD, Auge BK, Raj GV et al (2002) Laser Doppler flowmetric determination of ureteral blood flow after ureteral access sheath placement. J Endourol 16:583–590. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Huang J, Zhao Z, AlSmadi JK et al (2018) Use of the ureteral access sheath during ureteroscopy: a systematic review and meta-analysis. PLoS One 13:e0193600. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Huang J, Xie D, Xiong R et al (2018) The application of suctioning flexible ureteroscopy with intelligent pressure control in treating upper urinary tract calculi on patients with a solitary kidney. Urology 111:44–47. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Zeng G, Wang D, Zhang T, Wan SP (2016) Modified access sheath for continuous flow ureteroscopic lithotripsy: a preliminary report of a novel concept and technique. J Endourol 30:992–996. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    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 240:205–213CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Doizi S, Traxer O (2018) Flexible ureteroscopy: technique, tips and tricks. Urolithiasis 46:47–58. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Turk C, Petrik A, Sarica K et al (2016) EAU guidelines on interventional treatment for urolithiasis. Eur Urol 69:475–482. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Somani BK, Giusti G, Sun Y et al (2017) Complications associated with ureterorenoscopy (URS) related to treatment of urolithiasis: the Clinical Research Office of Endourological Society URS Global study. World J Urol 35:675–681. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Knoll T, Jessen JP, Honeck P, Wendt-Nordahl G (2011) Flexible ureterorenoscopy versus miniaturized PNL for solitary renal calculi of 10–30 mm size. World J Urol 29:755–759. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Bas O, Tuygun C, Dede O et al (2017) Factors affecting complication rates of retrograde flexible ureterorenoscopy: analysis of 1571 procedures-a single-center experience. World J Urol 35:819–826. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Atis G, Gurbuz C, Arikan O et al (2012) Ureteroscopic management with laser lithotripsy of renal pelvic stones. J Endourol 26:983–987. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Multescu R, Geavlete B, Georgescu D, Geavlete P, Chiutu L (2014) Holmium laser intrarenal lithotripsy in pyelocaliceal lithiasis treatment: to dust or to extractable fragments? Chirurgia (Bucharest 1990). Romania 109:95–98Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Eswara JR, Shariftabrizi A, Sacco D (2013) Positive stone culture is associated with a higher rate of sepsis after endourological procedures. Urolithiasis 41:411–414. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Bryniarski P, Paradysz A, Zyczkowski M et al (2012) A randomized controlled study to analyze the safety and efficacy of percutaneous nephrolithotripsy and retrograde intrarenal surgery in the management of renal stones more than 2 cm in diameter. J Endourol 26:52–57. CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Urology, Xiangya HospitalCentral South UniversityChangshaChina

Personalised recommendations