Dijital fleksible üreteroskopi ilk sonuçlarımız

Abstract

Amaç: Retrograde intrarenal cerrahide kullandığımız dijital fleksible üreteroskopi deneyimlerimizi sunmayı amaçladık.Gereç ve Yöntemler: Mart 2013-Şubat 2014 tarihleri arasında dijital fleksible üreterorenoskop ile 78 renal ünite retrograde intrarenal cerrahi yöntemiyle tedavi edildi. Hasta, taş ve with digital flexible ureteroscopy. Demograpoperasyon özellikleri ve başarı oranları değerhics, stone characteristics, operation specificalendirildi. Bulgular: Ortalama hasta yaşı 47,4 ve ortalama taş boyutu 16,04 mm olarak tespit edildi. Taş lokalizasyonları sırasıyla %29,48 ne size was 16,04 mm. The localizations renal pelvis, %6,41 üst pol, %6,41 orta pol ve of the stones were renal pelvis 29,48%, upper %29,48 alt pol idi. 56 renal ünitede tek taş varken 22 ünitede birden fazla taş mevcuttu. Ortalama operasyon ve floroskopi süreleri sırasıyla tients had multiple stones. The mean operation 55,9 dakika ve 42,1 saniye olarak tespit edildi. time was 55, 9 minutes and the mean fluorosBaşlangıç ve final başarı oranları ise sırasıyla copy time was 42, 1 seconds. The initial and %77,92 ve %79,26 olarak bulundu. final success rates were 77,92% and 79,26% resSonuç: Dijital fleksible üreteroskopların pectively. başarı oranları fiberoptik olanlarla benzerlik göstermektedir. Bunların başlıca avantajları görüntü kaliteleri ve sağlamlıklarıdır. En büyük devices. Their advantages are clear image quality dezavantajları ise fiberoptik cihazlara göre daha and durability. The major disadvantage is their kalın çaplarının olmasıdır

Keywords

• Dijital,fiberoptik,fleksible üreteroskopi

Initial results of our digital flexible ureteroscopy

Abstract

Objective: To present our digital flexible ureteroscopy experience during retrograde intrarenal surgery. Material and Methods: Between March 2013 and February 2014, a total of 78 renal units were treated by retrograde intrarenal surgery with digital flexible ureteroscopy. Demographics, stone characteristics, operation specifications and success rates of the patients are evaluated. Results: The mean age was 47, 4 and stone size was 16,04 8-36 mm. The localizations of the stones were renal pelvis 29,48%, upper pole 6,41%, middle pole 6,41% and lower pole 29,48%. 56 patients had single stone and 22 patients had multiple stones. The mean operation time was 55, 9 minutes and the mean fluoroscopy time was 42, 1 seconds. The initial and final success rates were 77,92% and 79,26% respectively. Conclusion: Digital flexible ureteroscopes has similar success rates compared to fiber optic devices. Their advantages are clear image quality and durability. The major disadvantage is their larger diameter compared to fiber optic devices.

Keywords

• Digital,fiber optic,Flexible ureteroscopy

References

1. Traxer O, Dubosq F, Jamali K, Gattegno B, Thibault P. New- generation flexible ureterorenoscopes are more durable than previous ones. Urology 2006;68:276-279;280-271.
2. Pietrow PK, Auge BK, Delvecchio FC, Silverstein AD, We- izer AZ, Albala DM et al. Techniques to maximize flexible ureteroscope longevity. Urology 2002;60:784-788.
3. Afane JS, Olweny EO, Bercowsky E, Sundaram CP, Dunn MD, Shalhav AL et al.Flexible ureteroscopes: a single cen- ter evaluation of the durability and function of the new endoscopes smaller than 9Fr. J Urol 2000;164:1164-1168.
4. Al-Qahtani SM, Geavlete B, de Medina SG, Traxer OP: The new Olympus digital flexible ureteroscope (URF-V): Initi- al experience. Urol Ann 2011;3:133-137.
5. Bach C, Nesar S, Kumar P, Goyal A, Kachrilas S, Papatsoris A, et al. The new digital flexible ureteroscopes: ‘size does matter increased ureteric access sheath use Urologia in- ternationalis 2012;89:408-411.
6. Huri E, Akgül T, Yücel Ö, Ayyıldız A, Karakan T, Germi- yanoğlu C. Üreteroskopik taş cerrahisinde zor olgu nedir? Turkish J Urol 2011;37:34-37.
7. Torricelli FC, De S, Hinck B, Noble M, Monga M. Flexible ureteroscopy with a ureteral access sheath: when to stent? Urology 2014;83:278-281.
8. Monga M, Best S, Venkatesh R, Ames C, Lee C, Kuskowski M, et al. Durability of flexible ureteroscopes: a randomi- zed, prospective study. J Urol 2006;176:137-141.

9. Binbay M, Yuruk E, Akman T, Ozgor F, Seyrek M, Ozku- vanci U et al.Is there a difference in outcomes between di- gital and fiberoptic flexible ureterorenoscopy procedures? J Endourol 2010;24:1929-1934.
10. User HM, Hua V, Blunt LW, Wambi C, Gonzalez CM, Nad- ler RB. Performance and durability of leading flexible ure- teroscopes. J Endourol 2004;18:735-738.
11. Mitchell S, Havranek E, Patel A. First digital flexible urete- rorenoscope: initial experience. J Endourol 2008;22:47-50.
12. Kourambas J, Byrne RR, Preminger GM. Does a ureteral access sheath facilitate ureteroscopy? J Urol 2001;165:789- 793.
13. Fuchs GJ, Fuchs AM. Flexible endoscopy of the upper uri- nary tract. A new minimally invasive method for diagnosis and treatment. Urology A 1990;29:313-320.
14. Preminger GM. Management of lower pole renal calculi: shock wave lithotripsy versus percutaneous nephrolitho- tomy versus flexible ureteroscopy. Urol Res 2006;34:108- 111.
15. Sari E, Tepeler A, Yuruk E, Resorlu B, Akman T, Binbay M, Armagan A, Unsal A, Muslumanoglu AY. Effect of the body mass index on outcomes of flexible ureterorenos- copy. Urolithiasis 2013;41:499-504.
16. Resorlu B, Unsal A, Ziypak T, Diri A, Atis G, Guven S et al. Comparison of retrograde intrarenal surgery, shockwave lithotripsy, and percutaneous nephrolithotomy for treat- ment of medium-sized radiolucent renal stones. World J Urol 2013;31:1581-1586.
17. Oguz U, Resorlu B, Ozyuvali E, Bozkurt OF, Senocak C, Unsal A. Categorizing Intraoperative Complications of Retrograde Intrarenal Surgery. Urol Int 2014;92:164-8.
18. Reşorlu B, Ünsal A. Böbrek Taşlarının Tedavisinde Retrog- rad İntrarenal Cerrahi. Turk Urol Sem 2011;2: 64-7.
19. Traxer O, Thomas A. Prospective evaluation and classifi- cation of ureteral wall injuries resulting from insertion of a ureteral access sheath during retrograde intrarenal sur- gery. J Urol 2013;189:580-584.