Combined semirigid and flexible ureterorenoscopy for the treatment of large renal stones.

Ureteroscopy is recognized as a minimally invasive and readily accessible method with low morbidity, favorable outcomes, and rapid post-interventional recovery. Recent advancements in rigid and flexible ureteroscopes have enhanced their efficiency, durability, and capability to accommodate accessory instruments. In this retrospective analysis, we evaluated 75 consecutive patients with large renal stones (stone burden between 2 and 4 cm) treated using a combination of semirigid and flexible ureteroscopy between January 1, 2020, and December 31, 2021. Stone properties and anatomical information were collected from the image archives derived from computed tomography (CT) and/or KUD radiography. Multiple ureteroscopy sessions were required for bigger stones. The length of the hospital stay, operation time, stone-free rate, preoperative and postoperative complications, and complication rates were examined. The average age of the patients was 52.7 years, with a mean stone burden of 31.45 mm. Most stones were in the renal pelvis, followed by the upper calyx. The average operative time was 56.2 minutes. After the initial ureteroscopy session, the stone clearance rate was 76%, which increased to 92% after two ureteroscopy sessions. Complication rates were evaluated using the Clavien-Dindo modified system, with an overall complication rate of 18.4%. Most of the complications were Clavien Grades I and II, with no grade V complication encountered. Large renal stones can be treated by combining semirigid and flexible ureteroscopy to reduce the operative time and protect the flexible ureteroscope.

Flexible Ureteroscopy Without Radiation Exposure.

Introduction:Renal stones are a common pathology in daily practice with a continuously increasing incidence. Using flexible ureteroscopy (fURS), urologists can treat difficult renal stones through the natural orifice and maintain a satisfactory stone-free rate. Even though advancing technologies offer the opportunity for minimally invasive surgery, the surgeon is still exposed to a considerable amount of ionizing radiation during several procedures. In this study, the aim is to determine the efficacy of flexible ureteroscopy without fluoroscopy in terms of stone-free rates and complications. Materials and methods:In the Urology Department of Saint John Clinical Emergency Hospital in Bucharest, Romania, a retrospective study was conducted on 98 patients diagnosed with renal calculi between September 2020 and December 2021. Using two different groups, the demographic characteristics of patients, characteristics of stones (size, number, location), the use of fluoroscopy, the operative time (in minutes) and postoperative complications, and the stone-free rate were compared. In one of the groups, fluoroscopy was used during fURS (Group I), while in the second group (Group II), no ionizing radiation was used during fURS. Results:Twenty-four males and 23 females were enrolled in Group I, whereas 31 males and 20 females were enrolled in Group II. The mean age of subjects was 63.2 years old in the fluoroscopy group and 61.6 years old in the group without fluoroscopy. While the stone characteristics revealed some variations in stone location between the compared groups, there were no statistical differences in mean stone diameter (1.489 mm - Group I vs. 1.588 mm - Group II). Stone-free rates and complications classified using Clavien-Dindo modified system for urological surgeries were used to analyze the main results. Group II had a slightly higher stone-free rate, but statistical studies found no significant differences; therefore, both methods are deemed equal in this field. Identified complications were classified as Clavien I and II and were successfully treated for both groups. Conclusion:This study reveals that by adhering to additional intraoperative measurements for guiding the access sheath, fURS without fluoroscopy can be performed safely and with a high success rate.

Single-use versus conventional reusable flexible ureteroscopes - an evaluation of the functional parameters.

The purpose of single-use flexible ureteroscopes (su-fURS) was to overcome the limitations of conventional reusable ureteroscopes in terms of maneuverability and maintenance. We aimed to perform a systematic literature review on available su-fURS performance versus conventional reusable fURS focusing on clinical data. A systematic research using Pubmed was performed evaluating single-use fURS and reusable fURS in urinary tract stone disease, including prospective assessments and case series. This review aimed to provide an overview of single-use and disposable flexible ureteroscopes and to examine and compare their capabilities (deflection, irrigation, optical properties). We included 11 studies, where the single-use fURS were compared to the reusable fURS. The studies with single-use ureteroscopes included data on LithoVue (Boston Scientific), The Uscope UE3022 (Pusen, Zhuhai, China), NeoFlex-Flexible, (Neoscope Inc San Jose, CA), 23 YC-FR-A (Shaogang). For reusable ureteroscopes, data were included on three models, two digital (Karl Storz Flex-XC and Olympus URF-Vo) and one fiber optic (Wolf-Cobra). There were no significant differences in stone-free rate, procedure duration, or functional capabilities between single-use fURS and reusable fURS. The systematic literature review analyzed operative time, functional capabilities, stone-free rates, and postoperative complications of the ureteroscopes, and a special chapter about renal abnormalities to emphasize that they are a good choice having a high proportion of stone-free rates and few risks, particularly in treating difficult-to-access calculi. Single-use fURS demonstrate a comparable efficacy with reusable fURS in resolving renal lithiasis. Further studies on clinical efficacy are needed to determine whether single-use fURS will reliably replace its reusable counterpart.

Comparison of Flexible Ureteroscope Performance between Reusable and Single-Use Models.

BACKGROUND: Single-use flexible ureteroscopes for urinary retention have been developed in recent years as an alternative to reusable ureteroscopes in order to eliminate the risk of cross-infections and to solve the primary limitations of traditional reusable flexible ureteroscopes for urinary retention. METHODS: In this study, we evaluated and contrasted three of the most recent types of flexible ureteroscopes, including two digital reusable versions (Olympus URF-V and Olympus URF-V2) and one single-use model (Pusen Medi-calUscope UE3022), in both ex vivo and in vivo scenarios. The influence of a variety of instruments on the flow of irrigation and its deflection was investigated ex vivo. In the in vivo investigation, a total of 40 patients were treated with retrograde fURS utilizing URF-V, 20 patients were treated with URF-V2, and 20 patients were treated with single-use fURS. The visibility and maneuverability of each fURS were evaluated by the same urologist during the procedures, and the results were compared. RESULTS: Intraoperatively, we compared the image quality of reusable (URF-V and URF-V2) and single-use fURS USCOPE UE3022 cameras and found that there was no statistically significant difference between the two types of camera. The score for maneuverability was the same (4.2) regardless of whether we used the UscopeUE3022 or the URF-V2, but it was significantly lower (3.8, p = 0.03) when we utilized the URF-V. Irrigation was about the same when utilizing reused scopes, whereas employing a single-use scope was more than fifty percent more effective. CONCLUSIONS: The findings of our research indicate that reusable and single-use fURs have visibility and maneuverability characteristics that are at least comparable to one another. The possibilities of the single-use type in terms of irrigation flow and deflection are superior.