OBJECTIVES: Ureteral access sheaths (UASs) are used to facilitate ureteroscopic procedures. Difficulties with use have been reported. Manufacturers have redesigned these devices to ameliorate these problems, including reinforcement of the sheath wall. This study compared reinforced (RUASs) and nonreinforced UASs (NRUASs) of the same manufacturer to determine whether RUASs expedite ureteroscopy and how relevant the reinforced structure is in terms of overall success. METHODS: We prospectively followed up patients undergoing ureteroscopy for urolithiasis with 1 of 2 UASs; the Applied NRUAS and the Applied RUAS. The demographics, operative parameters, and outcomes were assessed. Statistical analysis was performed. RESULTS: A total of 98 UASs were used in 68 male and 30 female patients (47 NRUASs and 51 RUASs). No significant differences were found between the groups in terms of demographic parameters, operative parameters, or successful sheath deployment. The overall success rate for sheath deployment was 95%. A pre-existing stent was significantly associated with successful deployment (P = .004). The sheath-specific limitations included kinking (NRUASs, 10%) and sheath angulation/deformity (RUASs, 21%). The mean follow-up time was 43.4 months; and 93.9% of the patients had radiologic follow-up. No ureteral strictures were noted. CONCLUSIONS: No significant difference was found in the overall success rates between the use of Applied NRUASs and RUASs. The presence of a pre-existing stent was significantly associated with successful sheath deployment. Each UAS design had its own unique limitations, seen with low frequency. Successful sheath use might relate to both the sheath itself and the patient/operative parameters.
OBJECTIVES:Ureteral access sheaths (UASs) are used to facilitate ureteroscopic procedures. Difficulties with use have been reported. Manufacturers have redesigned these devices to ameliorate these problems, including reinforcement of the sheath wall. This study compared reinforced (RUASs) and nonreinforced UASs (NRUASs) of the same manufacturer to determine whether RUASs expedite ureteroscopy and how relevant the reinforced structure is in terms of overall success. METHODS: We prospectively followed up patients undergoing ureteroscopy for urolithiasis with 1 of 2 UASs; the Applied NRUAS and the Applied RUAS. The demographics, operative parameters, and outcomes were assessed. Statistical analysis was performed. RESULTS: A total of 98 UASs were used in 68 male and 30 female patients (47 NRUASs and 51 RUASs). No significant differences were found between the groups in terms of demographic parameters, operative parameters, or successful sheath deployment. The overall success rate for sheath deployment was 95%. A pre-existing stent was significantly associated with successful deployment (P = .004). The sheath-specific limitations included kinking (NRUASs, 10%) and sheath angulation/deformity (RUASs, 21%). The mean follow-up time was 43.4 months; and 93.9% of the patients had radiologic follow-up. No ureteral strictures were noted. CONCLUSIONS: No significant difference was found in the overall success rates between the use of Applied NRUASs and RUASs. The presence of a pre-existing stent was significantly associated with successful sheath deployment. Each UAS design had its own unique limitations, seen with low frequency. Successful sheath use might relate to both the sheath itself and the patient/operative parameters.