World journal of urology · 2024
Optimal deflection techniques for flexible and navigable suction ureteral access sheaths (FANS): a comparative in vitro PEARLS analysis.
СтатьяСравнительное исследованиеНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Lua Alex, Tan Lynnette R L, Panthier Frédéric, Sierra Alba, Ventimiglia Eugenio, Solano Catalina, De Coninck Vincent, Yuen Steffi Kar Kei, Gauhar Vineet, Traxer Olivier, Keller Etienne Xavier, Kwok Jia-Lun
Аннотация
PURPOSE: Flexible and navigable suction ureteral access sheaths (FANS) have been introduced without current evidence on how to optimize deflection. Aim was to evaluate in vitro deflection angles with 2 different FANS techniques-sheath advancement and ureteroscope deflection; and effects of sheath size-ureteroscope combinations.
METHODS: We evaluated in vitro deflection angles of 10/12Fr, 11/13Fr and 12/14Fr FANS (Hunan Reborn Medical Co. Ltd) with six single-use flexible ureteroscopes (Pusen Uscope 7.5Fr, OTU WiScope 7.5Fr, OTU WiScope 8.6Fr, Innovex EU-scope 8.7Fr, Red Pine RP-U-C12 8.7Fr and Boston Scientific Lithovue 9.5Fr). Two deflection techniques were tested: (1) sheath advancement-advancing the sheath forward over a maximally deflected ureteroscope, and (2) ureteroscope deflection-maximally deflecting the ureteroscope from various starting positions relative to tip of the sheath.
RESULTS: Intra and inter-scope comparisons of maximum deflection angles were significantly different (all ANOVA p < 0.01). Largest maximum angles for all ureteroscopes were with the sheath advancement technique (range 218°-277°), and second largest for most scopes using the ureteroscope deflection technique at tip (range 111°-212°), mostly deviating from manufacturer specifications (range 270°-275°). 10/12Fr and 11/13Fr sheath sizes were more flexible than 12/14Fr. Largest angles were with 11/13Fr sheath-OTU8.6Fr/Innovex8.7Fr combinations.
CONCLUSION: Optimal deflection with FANS is achieved using either a sheath advancement technique, or ureteroscope deflection technique at tip. Despite using these optimized techniques, deflection angles specified by manufacturers seem hardly achievable. The sheath advancement technique and 11/13Fr sheath-OTU8.6Fr/Innovex8.7Fr combinations may be better suited for lower pole situations. Urologists should be aware of these differences and apply the findings to their FANS technique.
METHODS: We evaluated in vitro deflection angles of 10/12Fr, 11/13Fr and 12/14Fr FANS (Hunan Reborn Medical Co. Ltd) with six single-use flexible ureteroscopes (Pusen Uscope 7.5Fr, OTU WiScope 7.5Fr, OTU WiScope 8.6Fr, Innovex EU-scope 8.7Fr, Red Pine RP-U-C12 8.7Fr and Boston Scientific Lithovue 9.5Fr). Two deflection techniques were tested: (1) sheath advancement-advancing the sheath forward over a maximally deflected ureteroscope, and (2) ureteroscope deflection-maximally deflecting the ureteroscope from various starting positions relative to tip of the sheath.
RESULTS: Intra and inter-scope comparisons of maximum deflection angles were significantly different (all ANOVA p < 0.01). Largest maximum angles for all ureteroscopes were with the sheath advancement technique (range 218°-277°), and second largest for most scopes using the ureteroscope deflection technique at tip (range 111°-212°), mostly deviating from manufacturer specifications (range 270°-275°). 10/12Fr and 11/13Fr sheath sizes were more flexible than 12/14Fr. Largest angles were with 11/13Fr sheath-OTU8.6Fr/Innovex8.7Fr combinations.
CONCLUSION: Optimal deflection with FANS is achieved using either a sheath advancement technique, or ureteroscope deflection technique at tip. Despite using these optimized techniques, deflection angles specified by manufacturers seem hardly achievable. The sheath advancement technique and 11/13Fr sheath-OTU8.6Fr/Innovex8.7Fr combinations may be better suited for lower pole situations. Urologists should be aware of these differences and apply the findings to their FANS technique.