Literature DB >> 18419336

Conventional high pressure versus newly developed continuous-flow ureterorenoscope: urodynamic pressure evaluation of the renal pelvis and flow capacity.

Maurice Stephan Michel1, Patrick Honeck, Peter Alken.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: We evaluated the pressure and flow relation of a newly developed continuous-flow ureterorenoscope (URS) in comparison with a common ureterorenoscope in an ex-vivo urinary tract model.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Ureterorenoscopies were performed with the newly developed 10.5F continuous-flow URS with separate inflow and outflow channel and a conventional 10.5F URS with a combined inflow and outflow channel. The ex-vivo model consisted of complete urinary tracts of domestic pigs obtained freshly from the slaughterhouse. Both instruments were used in five urinary tracts, and six ureterorenoscopies were performed in each urinary tract. The pressure in the renal pelvis (RP) was measured during each procedure. Height of the irrigation solution above renal level and flow capacity were also documented.
RESULTS: The conventional URS showed a correlation of intrapelvic pressure and the height of the irrigation solution above renal level rising from 20+/-3.7 cm H(2)O at a solution level of 20 cm to a plateau pressure of 40+/-3.3 cm H(2)O with a distinct renal influx at a level of 50 cm. The maximum flow capacity at a solution level of 20 cm was 0.2 mL/min rising to a flow capacity of 0.5 mL/min at 40 cm above renal level. The maximum flow capacity for the continuous-flow URS was about 100 times higher, rising from 20 mL/min at a solution level of 20 cm to 70 mL/min at 40 cm above renal level. The intrapelvic pressure was 15+/-2.1 cm H(2)O at a solution level of 20 cm and did not exceed the physiologic renal pressure of 20 cm H(2)O even if the irrigation solution was at a height of 100 cm above renal level.
CONCLUSION: The newly developed continuous-flow URS provides a 100 times higher flow capacity while simultaneously preserving the physiologic pressure in the RP compared with the conventional URS. These characteristics will improve visibility and reduce retrograde stone manipulation, operative time, and complications under clinical conditions.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2008        PMID: 18419336     DOI: 10.1089/end.2008.0016

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Endourol        ISSN: 0892-7790            Impact factor:   2.942


  7 in total

1.  Intrarenal pressures remain low with placement of a dual lumen catheter for retrograde irrigation to induce renal hypothermia.

Authors:  J Colli; K Cotter; P Dorsey; G Mitchell; B R Lee
Journal:  Int Urol Nephrol       Date:  2012-05-12       Impact factor: 2.370

Review 2.  [Technical innovations in endourological stone therapy].

Authors:  P Honeck; U Nagele; M S Michel
Journal:  Urologe A       Date:  2008-05       Impact factor: 0.639

Review 3.  Pressure matters 2: intrarenal pressure ranges during upper-tract endourological procedures.

Authors:  Theodoros Tokas; Andreas Skolarikos; Thomas R W Herrmann; Udo Nagele
Journal:  World J Urol       Date:  2018-06-18       Impact factor: 4.226

4.  Comparison of intrarenal pelvic pressure during micro-percutaneous nephrolithotomy and conventional percutaneous nephrolithotomy.

Authors:  Abdulkadir Tepeler; Tolga Akman; Mesrur Selcuk Silay; Muzaffer Akcay; Cevper Ersoz; Senad Kalkan; Abdullah Armagan; Kemal Sarica
Journal:  Urolithiasis       Date:  2014-02-13       Impact factor: 3.436

5.  An investigation of the basic physics of irrigation in urology and the role of automated pump irrigation in cystoscopy.

Authors:  Dwayne Chang; Rustom P Manecksha; Konstantinos Syrrakos; Nathan Lawrentschuk
Journal:  ScientificWorldJournal       Date:  2012-05-15

6.  A simple fluid dynamic model of renal pelvis pressures during ureteroscopic kidney stone treatment.

Authors:  Alexandros T Oratis; John J Subasic; Natalia Hernandez; James C Bird; Brian H Eisner
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2018-11-29       Impact factor: 3.240

7.  High pressure endoscopic irrigation: impact on renal histology.

Authors:  Christopher Loftus; Michael Byrne; Manoj Monga
Journal:  Int Braz J Urol       Date:  2021 Mar-Apr       Impact factor: 1.541

  7 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.