Details

Autor(en) / Beteiligte

• Gauhar, Vineet
• Chai, Chu Ann
• Chew, Ben H
• Singh, Abhishek
• Castellani, Daniele
• Tailly, Thomas
• Emiliani, Esteban
• Keat, William Ong Lay
• Ragoori, Deepak
• Lakmichi, Mohamed Amine
• Teoh, Jeremy Yuen-Chun
• Traxer, Olivier
• Somani, Bhaskar Kumar

Titel

RIRS with disposable or reusable scopes: does it make a difference? Results from the multicenter FLEXOR study

Ist Teil von

• Therapeutic advances in urology, 2023-01, Vol.15, p.17562872231158072-17562872231158072

Ort / Verlag

London, England: SAGE Publications

Erscheinungsjahr

2023

Quelle

EZB Free E-Journals

Beschreibungen/Notizen

• Introduction: With several single-use ureteroscopes now available, our aim was to analyze and compare data obtained globally from high-volume centers using both disposable and reusable flexible ureteroscopes and see if indeed in real-world practice either scope has a distinct advantage. Methods: Retrospective analysis was performed on the FLEXOR registry, which was created as a TOWER group (Team of Worldwide Endourological Researchers, research wing of the Endourological Society) endeavor. Patients who underwent retrograde intrarenal surgery (RIRS) for renal stones from January 2018 to August 2021 were enrolled from 20 centers globally. A total of 6663 patients whose data were available for analysis were divided into Group 1 (Reusable scopes, 4808 patients) versus Group 2 (Disposable scopes, 1855 patients). Results: The age and gender distribution were similar in both groups. The mean stone size was 11.8 mm and 9.6 mm in Groups 2 and 1, respectively (p < 0.001). Group 2 had more patients with >2 cm stones, lower pole stones and of higher Hounsfield unit. Thulium fiber laser (TFL) was used more in Group 2 (p < 0.001). Patients in Group 2 had a slightly higher stone-free rate (SFR) (78.22%) and a lower number of residual fragments (RFs) compared with Group 1 (p < 0.001). The need for further treatments for RF and overall complications was comparable between groups. On multivariate analysis, overall complications were more likely to occur in elderly patients, larger stone size, lower pole stones, and were also more when using disposable scopes with longer operative time. RFs were significantly higher (p < 0.001) for lower pole, larger, harder, multiple stones and in elderly. Conclusion: Our real-world practice observations suggest that urologists choose disposable scopes for bigger, lower pole, and harder stones, and it does indeed help in improving the single-stage SFR if used correctly, with the appropriate lasers and lasing techniques in expert hands.