Eficacia y seguridad de la ureteroscopia y la cirugía retrógrada intrarrenal sin fluoroscopia para el tratamiento de la urolitiasis: estudio comparativo / Efficacy and safety of fluoroless ureteroscopy and retrograde intrarenal surgery for the treatment of urolithiasis: A comparative study

Introducción Las técnicas convencionales de ureteroscopia (URS) y cirugía retrógrada intrarrenal (CRIR) requieren el uso de guía fluoroscópica, pero los riesgos derivados de la exposición a radiaciones ionizantes constituyen un motivo de preocupación entre pacientes y urólogos. El objetivo de este estudio fue evaluar la eficacia y la seguridad de la URS y la CRIR sin fluoroscopia y compararlas con los procedimientos convencionales guiados por fluoroscopia para el tratamiento de litiasis ureterales y renales. Material y métodos Los pacientes tratados con URS o CRIR para litiasis urinaria entre agosto de 2018 y diciembre de 2019 fueron evaluados retrospectivamente y agrupados según el uso de o la ausencia de fluoroscopia. Los datos se recopilaron de las historias individuales de los pacientes. Los criterios de valoración principales fueron la tasa libre de cálculos (TLC) y las complicaciones, comparadas entre los grupos con fluoroscopia y sin fluoroscopia. Se realizó un análisis de subgrupos por tipo de procedimiento (URS y CRIR) y un análisis multivariante para identificar los factores predictivos de litiasis residual. Resultados Un total de 231 pacientes cumplieron los criterios de inclusión: 120 (51,9%) en el grupo tratado con fluoroscopia convencional y 111 (48,1%) en el grupo tratado sin fluoroscopia. No se hallaron diferencias significativas entre los grupos en cuanto a la TLC (82,5% vs. 90,1%; p=0,127) o de complicaciones postoperatorias (35,0% vs. 31,5%; p=0,675). No se hallaron diferencias significativas entre estas variables en el análisis de subgrupos, independientemente del procedimiento considerado (AU)

Introduction Ureteroscopy (URS) and retrograde intrarenal surgery (RIRS) are traditionally guided by fluoroscopy, but the risks of exposure to ionizing radiation may present a matter of concern for patients and urologists. The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of fluoroless URS and RIRS compared with conventional fluoroscopy-guided procedures for the treatment of ureteral and renal stones. Material and methods Patients treated with URS or RIRS for urolithiasis between August 2018 and December 2019 were retrospectively evaluated and grouped according to the use of fluoroscopy. Data was collected from individual patient records. The main outcomes were stone-free rate (SFR) and complications, compared between the fluoroscopy and fluoroless groups. A subgroup analysis by type of procedure (URS and RIRS) and a multivariate analysis to identify predictors of residual stones were conducted. Results A total of 231 patients met the inclusion criteria: 120 (51.9%) in the conventional fluoroscopy group and 111 (48.1%) in the fluoroless group. No significant differences were found between groups regarding SFR (82.5% vs 90.1%; P=.127) or postoperative complication rate (35.0% vs 31.5%; P=.675). In the subgroup analysis these variables did not present significant differences, regardless of the procedure considered. In the multivariate analysis the fluoroless technique was not an independent predictor of residual lithiasis (OR: 0.991; 95%IC: 0.407-2.411; P=.983), when adjusted for procedure type, stone size and stone number. Conclusion URS and RIRS can be done without fluoroscopic guidance in selected cases, without affecting the efficacy or safety of the procedure (AU)

Efficacy and safety of fluoroless ureteroscopy and retrograde intrarenal surgery for the treatment of urolithiasis: A comparative study.

INTRODUCTION: Ureteroscopy (URS) and retrograde intrarenal surgery (RIRS) are traditionally guided by fluoroscopy, but the risks of exposure to ionizing radiation may present a matter of concern for patients and urologists. The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of fluoroless URS and RIRS compared with conventional fluoroscopy-guided procedures for the treatment of ureteral and renal stones. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Patients treated with URS or RIRS for urolithiasis between August 2018 and December 2019 were retrospectively evaluated and grouped according to the use of fluoroscopy. Data was collected from individual patient records. The main outcomes were stone-free rate (SFR) and complications, compared between the fluoroscopy and fluoroless groups. A subgroup analysis by type of procedure (URS and RIRS) and a multivariate analysis to identify predictors of residual stones were conducted. RESULTS: A total of 231 patients met the inclusion criteria: 120 (51.9%) in the conventional fluoroscopy group and 111 (48.1%) in the fluoroless group. No significant differences were found between groups regarding SFR (82.5% vs 90.1%, p=.127) or postoperative complication rate (35.0% vs 31.5%, p=.675). In the subgroup analysis these variables did not present significant differences, regardless of the procedure considered. In the multivariate analysis the fluoroless technique was not an independent predictor of residual lithiasis (OR 0.991; 95% IC 0.407-2.411; p=.983), when adjusted for procedure type, stone size and stone number. CONCLUSION: URS and RIRS can be done without fluoroscopic guidance in selected cases, without affecting the efficacy or safety of the procedure.