Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Mostrar: 20 | 50 | 100
Resultados 1 - 3 de 3
Filtrar
Mais filtros










Base de dados
Intervalo de ano de publicação
1.
World J Urol ; 38(8): 2035-2040, 2020 Aug.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-31659464

RESUMO

PURPOSE: The increasing number of flexible ureteroscopy procedures, the fragility of devices and their repair costs are a burden for urological departments worldwide. The objective was to investigate the impact of 26 pre- and intraoperative factors on reusable flexible ureteroscope (fURS) damage. METHODS: All procedures were conducted with reusable fURS: Karl Storz Flex-X2 or Olympus URF-V. Statistical analysis was performed in RStudio (1.0.136) with Chi-square test and Mann-Whitney U tests (MWU). RESULTS: In total, 416 flexible ureteroscopies, performed between September 2013 and June 2017, were analysed. 283 (68.03%) of these were for kidney stone surgery, and 133 (31.97%) for diagnostic purposes. In total, 39 (9.38%) devices were postoperatively deemed defective. The application of reusable laser fibre through fURS was more common in cases with documented defects [17/39 (43.59%) vs. 102/377 (27.06%), p = 0.047]. Other factors such as application of nitinol basket, biopsy via fURS, insertion of access sheath (UAS), as well as stone burden [median kidney stone maximal diameter: 6 mm (min 2.0; max 30.0) vs. 6 mm (min 1.0 vs. max 30.0)] showed no influence on fURS damage rate (p > 0.05). The infundibulopelvic angle (IPA) was steeper in cases with fURS damage as compared to cases without damage [median 44.0° (min 20.0; max 81.0) vs. 55.0 (min 7.0; max 122.0), p < 0.001]. CONCLUSIONS: Application of laser fibre via fURS can be considered as a risk factor of fURS damage. Stone burden, as well as the usage of not-sharp ended devices as nitinol baskets or forceps, is primarily not responsible for fURS damage.


Assuntos
Falha de Equipamento , Cálculos Renais/cirurgia , Ureteroscópios , Desenho de Equipamento , Reutilização de Equipamento , Feminino , Humanos , Período Intraoperatório , Masculino , Pessoa de Meia-Idade , Período Pré-Operatório , Estudos Retrospectivos
2.
J Endourol ; 32(7): 597-602, 2018 07.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-29737199

RESUMO

OBJECTIVE: The increasing number of flexible ureterorenoscopy (fURS) procedures, the fragility of devices, and their growing repair costs represent a substantial burden for urological departments worldwide. No risk factors of flexible ureteroscope damage have been identified so far. The objective of this study was to investigate the impact of infundibulopelvic angle (IPA) on device damage and on other intraoperative and postoperative factors such as length of hospital stay, surgical complications, stone-free rate (SFR), operation, and fluoroscopy time. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In a retrospective monocentric study, IPA was measured based on intraoperative retrograde pyelography images taken during fURS. All procedures were conducted with modern reusable flexible ureteroscopes: Karl Storz Flex-X2 or Olympus URF-V. Statistical analysis was performed in RStudio (version 1.0.136) with the unpaired t-test and Mann-Whitney U test. Pearson correlation coefficient (Pearson's r) was measured whenever applicable. RESULTS: In total, 381 fURS performed between September 2013 and March 2017 were analyzed: 260 (68.24%) for kidney stone operation and 121 (31.76%) for diagnostic purposes; of these, 38 (9.97%) devices were postoperatively deemed defective. IPA values were significantly steeper in cases with flexible ureteroscope damage compared to cases without damage (median 42.5 degrees vs 56.0, p < 0.001). Steeper IPA was significantly associated with the occurrence of Clavien-Dindo ≥2 complications (median 51.0 degrees vs 55.0, p = 0.005) as well as prolonged hospital stay (median 51.0 degrees vs 55.0, p = 0.014). No influence on SFR was observed (p > 0.05). IPA did not correlate with operation or fluoroscopy time. CONCLUSIONS: Steep IPA can be considered the first risk factor predicting both flexible ureteroscope damage and an unfavorable postoperative course. A better understanding of damage mechanisms is the key for the proper indications to use costly single-use devices.


Assuntos
Falha de Equipamento/estatística & dados numéricos , Cálculos Renais/cirurgia , Pelve/anatomia & histologia , Ureteroscópios/estatística & dados numéricos , Ureteroscopia/estatística & dados numéricos , Adulto , Idoso , Desenho de Equipamento , Feminino , Custos Hospitalares/estatística & dados numéricos , Humanos , Cálculos Renais/diagnóstico por imagem , Tempo de Internação/estatística & dados numéricos , Masculino , Pessoa de Meia-Idade , Duração da Cirurgia , Complicações Pós-Operatórias/etiologia , Estudos Retrospectivos , Fatores de Risco , Ureteroscópios/economia
3.
J Endourol ; 31(12): 1226-1230, 2017 12.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-29073769

RESUMO

OBJECTIVE: The increasing number of flexible ureterorenoscopy (fURS) procedures, the fragility of devices, and their growing maintenance and repair costs represent a substantial burden for urologic departments. Disposable single-use fURS devices offer many advantages over reusable fURS. Among them, the LithoVue™ model shows the best clinical utility. In our study, we assessed the economic aspects of reusable fURS application compared with the potential costs and benefits of single-use fURS (LithoVue™). Indications for single-use fURS were proposed based on potential risk factors of reusable fURS damage. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This single-center retrospective analysis compared the actual cost of reusable fURS procedures with the potential costs of LithoVue™ based on the price offered by the manufacturer. Consecutive case analysis of damaged fURS was performed to determine potential risk factors associated with fURS damage. RESULTS: The study group consisted of 423 reusable fURS procedures conducted between January 2013 and December 2016. During this period, 102 (24.11%) diagnostic fURS and 321 (75.89%) fURS for kidney stone therapy were performed. In 32 of 423 (7.57%) fURS cases, devices were postoperatively deemed defective, 9 of which were used for diagnostic procedures (9/102; 8.82%), 7 for stone removal (7/148; 4.73%), and 16 for stone removal and laser (Ho:YAG) application (16/173; 9.25%). The average cost per reusable fURS procedure was found to be €503.26. CONCLUSIONS: Disposable fURS is a more expensive option for high-volume centers. Based on our case analysis, laser disintegration treatment of multiple, large stones in the lower kidney pole of recurrent stone formers, as well as a steep infundibulopelvic angle (IPA ≤50°), seems to be the main risk factor for fURS damage. For these cases, disposable fURS may be a cost-effective alternative; however, a prospective comparison of economic outcomes between disposable and reusable fURS, together with confirmation of the proposed damage risk factors, is needed.


Assuntos
Equipamentos Descartáveis/economia , Cálculos Renais/terapia , Rim/cirurgia , Ureteroscópios/economia , Ureteroscopia/economia , Adulto , Idoso , Análise Custo-Benefício , Custos e Análise de Custo , Feminino , Alemanha , Humanos , Lasers de Estado Sólido , Litotripsia a Laser/métodos , Masculino , Pessoa de Meia-Idade , Período Pós-Operatório , Estudos Retrospectivos , Ureteroscopia/instrumentação
SELEÇÃO DE REFERÊNCIAS
DETALHE DA PESQUISA
...