Abstract
Introduction
7.5F digital fURS and 9.5/11.5F ureteral access sheaths (UAS), both conventional (cUAS) and vacuum-assisted (vaUAS), are commercially available. Irrigation increases intrarenal pressure (IRP). This study analyzes the IRP with various irrigation rates using 7.5F fURS without UAS or with either cUAS or vaUAS in an ex-vivo porcine model. Pyelo-tubular backflow was also studied during these experiments.
Materials and methods
11 porcine kidneys were used. 7.5F digital fURS was tested without UAS and with 9.5/11.5F cUAS and vaUAS. 6F pressure monitor catheters were placed into the upper and lower calyces. IRPs were recorded under different irrigation rates. When vaUAS was used, the air vent was either open or closed. 300 mmHg aspiration pressure was chosen. Lastly, contrasted irrigation fluid was delivered until IRP reached above 30 mmHg. Fluoroscopy images were obtained at 5 mmHg intervals over this threshold to study the pyelo-tubular backflow.
Results
Using cUAS, IRP reached 30 mmHg with irrigation rates between 60 and 70 cc/min. Using vaUAS with vent closed, IRP never exceeded 10 mmHg with irrigation up to 120 cc/min. vaUAS with vent open performed marginally better than cUAS. fURS without UAS performed better than cUAS. Pyelo-tubular backflow became prominent at 40 mmHg.
Conclusion
In an ex-vivo porcine model, 7.5F fURS could be used safely without UAS with irrigation rates up to 120 cc/min. The safety margin dropped to 60–70 cc/min with cUAS. vaUAS with vent closed maintained IRP < 10 mmHg with irrigation rates up to 120 cc/min. Pyelo-tubular backflow was observed with IRP > 35 mmHg.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Hinman F, Redewill FH (1926) Pyelovenous back flow. J Am Med Assoc 87(16):1287–1293
Boccafoschi C, Lugnani F (1985) Intra-renal reflux. Urol Res 13(5):253–258
Jung HU, Frimodt-Moller PC, Osther PJ et al (2006) Pharmacological effect on pyeloureteric dynamics with a clinical perspective: a review of the literature. Urol Res 34(6):341–350
Wang D, Han Z, Bi Y et al (2022) Comparison of intrarenal pressure between convention and vacuum-assisted ureteral access sheath using an ex vivo porcine kidney model. World J Urol 40(12):3055–3060
Guan W, Liang J, Wang D et al (2023) The effect of irrigation rate on intrarenal pressure in an ex vivo porcine kidney model-preliminary study with different flexible ureteroscopes and ureteral access sheaths. World J Urol. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-023-04295-1. (online ahead of print)
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(1):33–36
Wilson WT, Preminger GM (1990) Intrarenal pressures generated during flexible deflectable ureterorenoscopy. J Endourol 4:135–141
Jung H, Osther PJS (2015) Intraluminal pressure profiles during flexible ureterorenoscopy. Springerplus 4:373–380
Fang L, Xie GH, Zheng Z et al (2019) The effect of ratio of endoscope-sheath diameter on intrapelvic pressure during flexible ureteroscopic lasertripsy. J Endourol 33(2):132–139
Monga M, Best S, Venkatesh R et al (2004) Prospective randomized comparison of 2 ureteral access sheaths during flexible retrograde ureteroscopy. J Urol 172(2):572–573
Monga M, Bodie J, Ercole B (2004) Is there a role for small-diameter ureteral access sheaths? Impact on irrigant flow and intrapelvic pressures. Urology 64(3):439–441
Wright A, Williams K, Somani B, Rukin N (2015) Intrarenal pressure and irrigation flow with commonly used ureteric access sheaths and instruments. Cent Eur J Urol 68(4):434–438
Thomsen HS, Larsen S, Talner LB (1982) Pyelorenal backflow during retrograde pyelography in normal and ischemic porcine kidneys. A radiologic and pathoanatomic study. Eur Urol 8(5):291–297
Noureldin YA, Kallidonis P, Ntasiotis P et al (2019) The effect of irrigation power and ureteral access sheath diameter on the maximal intra-pelvic pressure during ureteroscopy: in vivo experimental study in a live anesthetized pig. J Endourol. 33(9):725–729
Rehman J, Monga M, Landman J et al (2003) Characterization of intrapelvic pressure during ureteropyeloscopy with ureteral access sheaths. Urology 61(4):713–718
Yoshida T, Inoue T, Abe T et al (2018) Evaluation of intrapelvic pressure when using small-sized ureteral access sheaths of ≤ 10/12Fr in an ex vivo porcine kidney model. J Endourol 32(12):1142–1147
Caballero-Romeu JP, Galan-Llopis JA, Soria F et al (2008) Micro-ureteroscopy vs ureteroscopy: effects of miniaturization on renal vascularization and intrapelvic pressure [J]. World J Urol 36(5):811–817
Acknowledgements
We want to thank Professor Shaw P. Wan, MD. for his input and editing the English of this manuscript.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.
About this article
Cite this article
Han, Z., Wang, B., Liu, X. et al. Intrarenal pressure study using 7.5 French flexible ureteroscope with or without ureteral access sheath in an ex-vivo porcine kidney model. World J Urol 41, 3129–3134 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-023-04598-3
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-023-04598-3