Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

First clinical evaluation of a new innovative ureteral access sheath (Re-Trace™): a European study

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

Abstract

Purpose

The use of a ureteral access sheath (UAS) during flexible retrograde intrarenal surgery (RIRS) has become increasingly popular. Our aim was to evaluate the accessibility of a new UAS device, allowing the transformation of the working guidewire into a safety guidewire.

Methods

A prospective, multicenter study was conducted between January and February 2010 in six European tertiary reference centers. Patients needing flexible RIRS were eligible to participate in the study. In all cases, insertion of the Re-Trace™ (12/14Fr, Coloplast, Denmark) was attempted at the beginning of the procedure. Insertion success was defined as placement of the UAS in the lumbar ureter with successful disengagement of the working guidewire, which turned into a safety guidewire. Influence of gender and pre-stenting status was analyzed by univariate analysis.

Results

137 UASs were used in 75 male and 62 female patients. 25.5 % of ureters were pre-stented: men were 2.17 more often pre-stented than women. The overall Re-Trace™ insertion rate was 82.5 %. Success rate was not significantly different between men and women (77.3 vs. 88.7 %, respectively, p = 0.11). Pre-stenting status did not significantly influence the success rate (p = 0.31). When analyzing the combined influence of pre-stenting status and gender, the worst success rates seemed to be obtained in men without pre-stenting, but no significant differences were found between groups.

Conclusions

Re-Trace™ UAS showed good overall insertion rates. This evaluation validated the new concept of guidewire disengagement: A single wire automatically switches from working to safety role.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Newman RC, Hunter PT, Hawkins IF et al (1985) A general ureteral dilator-sheathing system. Urology 25:287–288

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Vanlangendonck R, Landman J (2004) Ureteral access strategies: pro-access sheath. Urol Clin North Am 31:71–81

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Rich M, Lee WJ, Smith AD (1987) Applications of the peelaway introducer sheath. J Urol 137:452–454

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Takayasu H, Aso Y (1974) Recent development for pyeloureteroscopy: guide tube method for its introduction into the ureter. J Urol 112:176–178

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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 18:33–36

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. 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 66:252–255

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Stern JM, Yiee J, Park S (2007) Safety and efficacy of ureteral access sheaths. J Endourol 21:119–123

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Traxer O, Thomas A (2012) Prospective evaluation and classification of ureteral wall injuries resulting from insertion of a ureteral access sheath during retrograde intrarenal surgery. J Urol (in press)

  10. Zelenko N, Coll D, Rosenfeld AT et al (2004) Normal ureter size on unenhanced helical CT. AJR Am J Roentgenol 182:1039–1041

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Türk C, Knoll T, Petrik A et al (2012) EAU guidelines on urolithiasis. Uroweb 2012. http://www.uroweb.org/gls/pdf/20_Urolithiasis_LR%20March%2013%202012.pdf. Accessed January 3, 2013

  12. Shields JM, Tunuguntla HS, Bhalani VK et al (2009) Construction-related differences seen in ureteral access sheaths: comparison of reinforced versus nonreinforced ureteral access sheaths. Urology 73:241–244

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Ayyathurai R, Kanagarajah P, Shields J et al (2012) Single-center clinical comparison of two reinforced ureteral access sheaths for retrograde ureteroscopic treatment of urinary lithiasis. Int Urol Nephrol 44:409–414

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Conflict of interest

The study was financially supported by the Coloplast company. Olivier Traxer and Cesare Scoffone are consultants for Coloplast. Other authors have nothing to disclose. The authors analyzed the results and wrote the manuscript without any external influence from Coloplast.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Urology, Tenon Hospital, 4 rue de la chine, 75020, Paris, France

    Steeve Doizi, Jean-Nicolas Cornu & Olivier Traxer

  2. Department of Urology, Klinikum Sindelfingen-Böblingen, Arthur-Gruber-Str. 70, 71065, Sindelfingen, Germany

    Thomas Knoll

  3. Department of Urology, Cottolengo Hospital, Via Cottolengo, 9, 10126, Turin, Italy

    Cesare M. Scoffone

  4. Universidad Autonoma de Barcelona, Fundaciò Puigvert, Calle Cartagena 340–350, 08025, Barcelona, Spain

    Alberto Breda

  5. Karolinska Institutet Department of Onkolgoi, Patologi, 171 76, Stockholm, Sweden

    Marianne Brehmer

  6. Department of Urology, University of Patras Medical School, 26 500, Rio, Patras, Greece

    Evangelos Liatsikos

Authors
  1. Steeve Doizi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Thomas Knoll
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Cesare M. Scoffone
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Alberto Breda
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Marianne Brehmer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Evangelos Liatsikos
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Jean-Nicolas Cornu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Olivier Traxer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Olivier Traxer.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Doizi, S., Knoll, T., Scoffone, C.M. et al. First clinical evaluation of a new innovative ureteral access sheath (Re-Trace™): a European study. World J Urol 32, 143–147 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-013-1094-3

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-013-1094-3

Keywords

Search

Navigation