Abstract
Background
Ureteral access sheaths (UAS) are used to facilitate ureteroscopic procedures. Difficulties in use, including sheath distortion, buckling, and difficulty in placement, have been reported. However, few clinical comparisons have been performed. We present the first large-scale comparison of the Applied ForteXE® and ACMI-Gyrus Uropass® UAS.
Methods
We retrospectively compared patients who underwent ureteroscopy for urolithiasis with one of two types of UAS: Applied Forte XE® or ACMI-Gyrus Uropass®. Demographics, operative parameters, and outcomes were assessed. Statistical analysis was performed.
Results
In 125 (64.4%) male and 69 (35.6%) female patients, 194 UAS were used. One hundred and thirteen (58.2%) Applied Forte XE® and 81 (41.8%) ACMI-Gyrus Uropass® were utilized. Success rates for sheath deployment were as follows: overall = 186/194 (95.8%); Applied Forte XE® = 107/113 (94.7%); and ACMI-Gyrus Uropass® = 79/81 (97.5%) (P = 0.472). Of the 194 patients 131 (67.5%) had a pre-existing stent. Sheath deployment failures occurred in 7 men and 1 woman, of which 4/8 (50%) had no pre-existing stent. Limitations of deployed sheaths occurred at low frequency in both Applied Forte XE 17/107 (15.9%) and ACMI-Gyrus 6/79 (7.6%), with no significant difference observed (P = 0.120). Limitations in use was high in men (P = 0.019). At a mean follow-up of 41 months, no ureteral strictures were noted.
Conclusions
No significant differences were seen in overall success rates for both sheaths. Both sheaths had high deployment success rates and a similar low frequency of sheath-related limitations. We noted increased limitations in the use of deployed sheaths in men. Successful sheath use may depend on both the sheath itself and patient/operative parameters.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Vanlangendonck R, Landman J (2004) Ureteral access strategies: pro-access sheath. Urol Clin North Am 31:71–81
Auge BK, Pietrow PK, Lallas CD, Raj GV, Santa-Cruz RW, Preminger GM (2004) Ureteral access sheath provides protection against elevated renal pressures during routine flexible ureteroscopic stone manipulation. J Endourol 18:33–36
Kourambas J, Byrne RR, Preminger GM (2001) Does a ureteral access sheath facilitate ureteroscopy? J Urol 165:789–793
Monga M, Best S, Venkatesh R, Ames C, Lieber D, Vanlangendock R, Landman J (2004) Prospective randomized comparison of 2 ureteral access sheaths during flexible retrograde ureteroscopy. J Urol 172:572–573
Monga M, Gawlik A, Durfee W (2004) Systematic evaluation of ureteral access sheaths. Urol 63:834–836
Shields JM, Bird VG, Graves R, Gomez-Marin O (2009) Impact of preoperative ureteral stenting on outcome of ureteroscopic treatment for urinary lithiasis. J Urol 182:2768–2774
Takayasu H, Aso Y (1974) Recent development for pyeloureteroscopy: guide tube method for its introduction into the ureter. J Urol 112:176–178
Monga M, Bhayani S, Landman J, Conradie M, Sundaram CP, Clayman RV (2001) Ureteral access for upper urinary tract disease: the access sheath. J Endourol 15:831–834
Shields JM, Tunuguntla HS, Bhalani VK, Ayyathurai R, Bird VG (2009) Construction-related differences seen in ureteral access sheaths: comparison of reinforced versus nonreinforced ureteral access sheaths. Urol 73:241–244
Pedro RN, Hendlin K, Durfee WK, Monga M (2007) Physical characteristics of next-generation ureteral access sheaths: buckling and kinking. Urol 70:440–442
Conflict of interest
None.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Ayyathurai, R., Kanagarajah, P., Shields, J. et al. Single-center clinical comparison of two reinforced ureteral access sheaths for retrograde ureteroscopic treatment of urinary lithiasis. Int Urol Nephrol 44, 409–414 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11255-011-0017-8
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11255-011-0017-8