Jie Ding1, Ding Xu1, Qifeng Cao1, Tao Huang2, Yunkai Zhu3, Kai Huang4, Yifan Chen1, Chengcai Liang1, Jun Qi1, Yunteng Huang5. 1. Department of Urology, Xin Hua Hospital Affiliated to Shanghai Jiao Tong University School of Medicine, Shanghai, China. 2. Department of Urology, Anhui Provincial Hospital, Hefei, Anhui, China. 3. Department of Ultrasonography, Xin Hua Hospital Affiliated to Shanghai Jiao Tong University School of Medicine, Shanghai, China. 4. Department of Anesthesiology, Xin Hua Hospital Affiliated to Shanghai Jiao Tong University School of Medicine, Shanghai, China. 5. Department of Urology, Xin Hua Hospital Affiliated to Shanghai Jiao Tong University School of Medicine, Shanghai, China. Electronic address: xiaoding@sjtu.edu.cn.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To report our prospective comparison of clinical efficacy between multimodular flexible ureteroscope, PolyScope, and conventional flexible ureteroscope, both combined with holmium laser lithotripsy in managing renal stones <3 cm in diameter. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Between February 2011 and July 2014, a total of 360 adult patients with renal stones were randomized in a single tertiary-care center trial. For 180 patients in each arm, flexible ureteroscopy and holmium laser lithotripsy were done with either PolyScope or Olympus URF P-5 as control. The primary end points were single-session stone fragmentation rate and stone-free rate. The secondary end points comprised operation time, complication rate, and hospital stay. RESULTS: Demographic and preoperative parameters were comparable between 2 groups. For stones of different locations and sizes, single-session stone fragmentation rate of PolyScope was similar to that of URF P-5. However, for lower calyceal stones, URF P-5 was significantly better than PolyScope (82.0% vs 69.2%; P = .022). No statistically significant difference existed in single-session or overall stone-free rate, complication rate, and hospital stay. Mean operation time of PolyScope group was 92.6 ± 20.2 minutes, 9 minutes (10.8%) longer than that of URF P-5 group 83.3 ± 17.1 minutes (P < .01). CONCLUSION: PolyScope demonstrates similar overall stone clearance rate to a conventional flexible ureteroscope in managing renal calculi <3 cm in diameter, but for lower pole stones, it is of inferior efficacy and it is more skillfully demanding, taking longer operation time.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVE: To report our prospective comparison of clinical efficacy between multimodular flexible ureteroscope, PolyScope, and conventional flexible ureteroscope, both combined with holmium laser lithotripsy in managing renal stones <3 cm in diameter. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Between February 2011 and July 2014, a total of 360 adult patients with renal stones were randomized in a single tertiary-care center trial. For 180 patients in each arm, flexible ureteroscopy and holmium laser lithotripsy were done with either PolyScope or Olympus URF P-5 as control. The primary end points were single-session stone fragmentation rate and stone-free rate. The secondary end points comprised operation time, complication rate, and hospital stay. RESULTS: Demographic and preoperative parameters were comparable between 2 groups. For stones of different locations and sizes, single-session stone fragmentation rate of PolyScope was similar to that of URF P-5. However, for lower calyceal stones, URF P-5 was significantly better than PolyScope (82.0% vs 69.2%; P = .022). No statistically significant difference existed in single-session or overall stone-free rate, complication rate, and hospital stay. Mean operation time of PolyScope group was 92.6 ± 20.2 minutes, 9 minutes (10.8%) longer than that of URF P-5 group 83.3 ± 17.1 minutes (P < .01). CONCLUSION: PolyScope demonstrates similar overall stone clearance rate to a conventional flexible ureteroscope in managing renal calculi <3 cm in diameter, but for lower pole stones, it is of inferior efficacy and it is more skillfully demanding, taking longer operation time.
Authors: N F Davis; M R Quinlan; C Browne; N R Bhatt; R P Manecksha; F T D'Arcy; N Lawrentschuk; D M Bolton Journal: World J Urol Date: 2017-11-24 Impact factor: 4.226
Authors: Ahmed I Ali; Amr Eldakhakhny; Abdelsalam Abdelfadel; Mahmoud F Rohiem; Mohamed Elbadry; Ali Hassan Journal: World J Urol Date: 2022-07-27 Impact factor: 3.661
Authors: Steeve Doizi; Guido Kamphuis; Guido Giusti; Kim Hovgaard Andreassen; Thomas Knoll; Palle Jörn Osther; Cesare Scoffone; Daniel Pérez-Fentes; Silvia Proietti; Oliver Wiseman; Jean de la Rosette; Olivier Traxer Journal: World J Urol Date: 2016-09-26 Impact factor: 4.226
Authors: Giovanni S Marchini; Fábio C Torricelli; Carlos A Batagello; Manoj Monga; Fábio C Vicentini; Alexandre Danilovic; Miguel Srougi; William C Nahas; Eduardo Mazzucchi Journal: Int Braz J Urol Date: 2019 Jul-Aug Impact factor: 1.541
Authors: Eduardo Mazzucchi; Giovanni Scala Marchini; Fernanda Christina Gabrigna Berto; John Denstedt; Alexandre Danilovic; Fabio Carvalho Vicentini; Fabio Cesar Miranda Torricelli; Carlos Alfredo Battagello; Miguel Srougi; William Carlos Nahas Journal: Int Braz J Urol Date: 2022 May-Jun Impact factor: 3.050
Authors: Eduardo Mazzucchi; Fernanda C G Berto; John Denstedt; Alexandre Danilovic; Carlos Alfredo Batagello; Fabio C M Torricelli; Fabio C Vicentini; Giovanni S Marchini; Miguel Srougi; William C Nahas Journal: Int Braz J Urol Date: 2022 Jan-Feb Impact factor: 1.541