Comparison of commonly utilized ureteral access sheaths: A prospective randomized trial
https://doi.org/10.4081/aiua.2023.11149
Accepted: January 22, 2023
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article or claim that may be made by its manufacturer is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.
Objective: We aimed to evaluate and compare the functional characteristics, safety profile and effectiveness of two commonly used ureteral access sheaths (UAS) during flexible ureteroscopy. Methods: After institutional review board approval, patients with proximal ureteral or kidney stones requiring flexible ureteroscopy and UAS were prospectively randomized to group I or group II according to the type of access sheath used. Primary outcome was incidence of intraoperative complications. Results: Eighty-eight patients were enrolled in the study, 44 patients in each group. Sheath size 12/14 FR was used in both cohorts. Median (IQR) stone size was 10 mm (7-13.5) and 10.5 mm (7.37-14) in group I and II respectively (p = 0.915). Nineteen and twenty patients, in group I and II respectively, were pre-stented. Subjective resistance with insertion of the UAS was observed in 9 and 11 patients in group I and II respectively (p = 0.61) while failed insertion was encountered in one patient in group I. Traxer grade 1 ureteral injury was noted in 5 and 6 patients in group I and II respectively while grade 3 injury was seen in 1 patient for both cohorts (p = 0.338). There was less resistance for UAS placement in pre-stented patients (p = 0.0202) but without significant difference in ureteric injury incidence (p = 0.175). Emergency department visits were encountered in 7 (group I) and 5 patients (group II) (p = 0.534). Conclusions: The studied UASs were comparable regarding safety and efficacy in the current study. Pre-stented and dilated ureters had less resistance to insertion although this was not reflected on incidence of ureteric injury.
Doizi S, Traxer O. Flexible ureteroscopy: technique, tips and tricks. Urolithiasis. 2018; 46:47-58.
Rodríguez-Monsalve Herrero M, Doizi S, Keller EX, et al. Retrograde intrarenal surgery: An expanding role in treatment of urolithiasis. Asian J Urol. 2018; 5:264-273.
Inoue T, Okada S, Hamamoto S, Fujisawa M. Retrograde intrarenal surgery: Past, present, and future. Investig Clin Urol. 2021; 62:121-135.
De Coninck V, Keller EX, Rodríguez-Monsalve M, et al. Systematic review of ureteral access sheaths: facts and myths. BJU Int. 2018; 122:959-969.
Auge BK, Pietrow PK, Lallas CD, et al. Ureteral access sheath provides protection against elevated renal pressures during routine flexible ureteroscopic stone manipulation. J Endourol. 2004; 18:33-6.
Wong VK, Aminoltejari K, Almutairi K, et al. Controversies associated with ureteral access sheath placement during ureteroscopy. Investig Clin Urol. 2020; 61:455-463.
Meier K, Hiller S, Dauw C, et al. Understanding Ureteral Access Sheath Use Within a Statewide Collaborative and Its Effect on Surgical and Clinical Outcomes. J Endourol. 2021; 35:1340-1347.
Stern JM, Yiee J, Park S. Safety and efficacy of ureteral access sheaths. J Endourol. 2007; 21:119-23.
Traxer O, Thomas A. Prospective evaluation and classification of ureteral wall injuries resulting from insertion of a ureteral access sheath during retrograde intrarenal surgery. J Urol. 2013; 189:580-4.
Yoshida T, Inoue T, Abe T, Matsuda T. Evaluation of Intrapelvic Pressure When Using Small-Sized Ureteral Access Sheaths of ≤ 10/12F in an Ex Vivo Porcine Kidney Model. J Endourol. 2018; 32:1142-1147.
Sener TE, Cloutier J, Villa L, et al. Can We Provide Low Intrarenal Pressures with Good Irrigation Flow by Decreasing the Size of Ureteral Access Sheaths? J Endourol. 2016; 30:49-55.
De S, Sarkissian C, Torricelli FC, et al. New ureteral access sheaths: a double standard. Urology. 2015; 85:757-63.
Patel N, Monga M. Ureteral access sheaths: a comprehensive comparison of physical and mechanical properties. Int Braz J Urol. 2018; 44:524-535.
Loftus CJ, Ganesan V, Traxer O, et al. Ureteral Wall Injury with Ureteral Access Sheaths: A Randomized Prospective Trial. J Endourol. 2020; 34:932-936.
Yuk HD, Park J, Cho SY, et al. The effect of preoperative ureteral stenting in retrograde Intrarenal surgery: a multicenter, propensity score-matched study. BMC Urol. 2020; 20:147.
Koo KC, Yoon JH, Park NC, et al. The impact of preoperative α- adrenergic antagonists on ureteral access sheath insertion force and the upper limit of force required to avoid ureteral mucosal injury: a randomized controlled study. J Urol. 2018; 199:1622-30.
Erturhan S, Bayrak Ö, S¸en H, et al. Can alpha blockers facilitate the placement of ureteral access sheaths in retrograde intrarenal surgery? Turk J Urol. 2019; 45:108-112.
Aykanat C, Balci M, Senel C, et al. The Impact of Ureteral Access Sheath Size on Perioperative Parameters and Postoperative Ureteral Stricture in Retrograde Intrarenal Surgery. J Endourol. 2022; 36:1013-1017.
Supporting Agencies
NoneCopyright (c) 2023 the Author(s)
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
PAGEPress has chosen to apply the Creative Commons Attribution NonCommercial 4.0 International License (CC BY-NC 4.0) to all manuscripts to be published.
Downloads
Citations
