World journal of urology · 2016
Use of XenX™, the latest ureteric occlusion device with guide wire utility: results from a prospective multicentric comparative study.
Сравнительное исследованиеСтатьяМногоцентровое исследованиеНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
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.
Sanguedolce Francesco, Montanari Emanuele, Alvarez-Maestro Mario, Macchione Nicola, Hruby Stephan, Papatsoris Athanasios, Kallidonis Panagiotis, Villa Luca, Honeck Patrick, Traxer Olivier, Greco Francesco, EAU Young Academic Urologists- Endourology and Urolithiasis Working Group
Аннотация
PURPOSE: This is a prospective multicentric comparative study evaluating the performance of XenX-a new dual-purpose device for the prevention of stone fragments migration during ureteroscopic lithotripsy (URS).
METHODS: Between March 2014 and January 2015, 41 patients undertaking URS + XenX were matched with 41 patients undergoing standard URS. Patients included had unilateral ureteric stone(s) of 0.5-1.5 cm in maximum size. Demographics, complication rates and surgical outcomes were recorded for comparison. A Likert-like 5-grade scoring system was used for surgeons' evaluation of XenX properties. Cost analysis was performed by comparing weighted mean costs of the relevant procedures.
RESULTS: Patients' characteristics between the two groups were comparable. Lasering time was longer for XenX group (13.59 vs. 5.17 min; p = 0.0001) whilst use of basket and need of JJ stent insertion was more frequent in control group (19.5 vs. 97.6 %; p = 0.0001 and 22 vs. 35 %; p = 0.001, respectively). Intra-operative SFR was significantly higher for XenX group (100 vs. 85.4 %; p = 0.0001), but not at 4-week follow-up, after ancillary procedures were needed in 17.1 % of the control group. Surgeons' evaluations for XenX were suboptimal for "Ease of Basketing" (2/5) and "Advancement of double J stent" (3/5). The use of XenX increased costs of procedures, but spared the costs associated to ancillary procedures and stent removals.
CONCLUSIONS: XenX confirmed to be a safe and effective device especially for the treatment of upper ureteric tract stones; moreover, XenX may reduce the risk for the need of auxiliary procedures and for the insertion of a JJ stent.
METHODS: Between March 2014 and January 2015, 41 patients undertaking URS + XenX were matched with 41 patients undergoing standard URS. Patients included had unilateral ureteric stone(s) of 0.5-1.5 cm in maximum size. Demographics, complication rates and surgical outcomes were recorded for comparison. A Likert-like 5-grade scoring system was used for surgeons' evaluation of XenX properties. Cost analysis was performed by comparing weighted mean costs of the relevant procedures.
RESULTS: Patients' characteristics between the two groups were comparable. Lasering time was longer for XenX group (13.59 vs. 5.17 min; p = 0.0001) whilst use of basket and need of JJ stent insertion was more frequent in control group (19.5 vs. 97.6 %; p = 0.0001 and 22 vs. 35 %; p = 0.001, respectively). Intra-operative SFR was significantly higher for XenX group (100 vs. 85.4 %; p = 0.0001), but not at 4-week follow-up, after ancillary procedures were needed in 17.1 % of the control group. Surgeons' evaluations for XenX were suboptimal for "Ease of Basketing" (2/5) and "Advancement of double J stent" (3/5). The use of XenX increased costs of procedures, but spared the costs associated to ancillary procedures and stent removals.
CONCLUSIONS: XenX confirmed to be a safe and effective device especially for the treatment of upper ureteric tract stones; moreover, XenX may reduce the risk for the need of auxiliary procedures and for the insertion of a JJ stent.