Francesco Sanguedolce1,2, Emanuele Montanari3, Mario Alvarez-Maestro4, Nicola Macchione3, Stephan Hruby5, Athanasios Papatsoris6, Panagiotis Kallidonis7, Luca Villa8, Patrick Honeck9, Olivier Traxer7, Francesco Greco10. 1. King's College Hospital, NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK. fsangue@hotmail.com. 2. Northampton General Hospital, Northampton, UK. fsangue@hotmail.com. 3. San Paolo Hospital, University of Milano, Milan, Italy. 4. Infanta Sofia University Hospital, Madrid, Spain. 5. Paracelsus Medical University Salzburg, Salzburg, Austria. 6. Sismanoglio General Hospital, Athens, Greece. 7. Patras University Hospital, Patras, Greece. 8. Tenon University Hospital, Paris, France. 9. Sindelfingen-Böblingen Clinic, Boblingen, Germany. 10. Romolo Hospital, Rocca di Neto, Italy.
Abstract
PURPOSE: This is a prospective multicentric comparative study evaluating the performance of XenX-a new dual-purpose device for the prevention of stone fragments migration during ureteroscopic lithotripsy (URS). METHODS: Between March 2014 and January 2015, 41 patients undertaking URS + XenX were matched with 41 patients undergoing standard URS. Patients included had unilateral ureteric stone(s) of 0.5-1.5 cm in maximum size. Demographics, complication rates and surgical outcomes were recorded for comparison. A Likert-like 5-grade scoring system was used for surgeons' evaluation of XenX properties. Cost analysis was performed by comparing weighted mean costs of the relevant procedures. RESULTS: Patients' characteristics between the two groups were comparable. Lasering time was longer for XenX group (13.59 vs. 5.17 min; p = 0.0001) whilst use of basket and need of JJ stent insertion was more frequent in control group (19.5 vs. 97.6 %; p = 0.0001 and 22 vs. 35 %; p = 0.001, respectively). Intra-operative SFR was significantly higher for XenX group (100 vs. 85.4 %; p = 0.0001), but not at 4-week follow-up, after ancillary procedures were needed in 17.1 % of the control group. Surgeons' evaluations for XenX were suboptimal for "Ease of Basketing" (2/5) and "Advancement of double J stent" (3/5). The use of XenX increased costs of procedures, but spared the costs associated to ancillary procedures and stent removals. CONCLUSIONS: XenX confirmed to be a safe and effective device especially for the treatment of upper ureteric tract stones; moreover, XenX may reduce the risk for the need of auxiliary procedures and for the insertion of a JJ stent.
PURPOSE: This is a prospective multicentric comparative study evaluating the performance of XenX-a new dual-purpose device for the prevention of stone fragments migration during ureteroscopic lithotripsy (URS). METHODS: Between March 2014 and January 2015, 41 patients undertaking URS + XenX were matched with 41 patients undergoing standard URS. Patients included had unilateral ureteric stone(s) of 0.5-1.5 cm in maximum size. Demographics, complication rates and surgical outcomes were recorded for comparison. A Likert-like 5-grade scoring system was used for surgeons' evaluation of XenX properties. Cost analysis was performed by comparing weighted mean costs of the relevant procedures. RESULTS:Patients' characteristics between the two groups were comparable. Lasering time was longer for XenX group (13.59 vs. 5.17 min; p = 0.0001) whilst use of basket and need of JJ stent insertion was more frequent in control group (19.5 vs. 97.6 %; p = 0.0001 and 22 vs. 35 %; p = 0.001, respectively). Intra-operative SFR was significantly higher for XenX group (100 vs. 85.4 %; p = 0.0001), but not at 4-week follow-up, after ancillary procedures were needed in 17.1 % of the control group. Surgeons' evaluations for XenX were suboptimal for "Ease of Basketing" (2/5) and "Advancement of double J stent" (3/5). The use of XenX increased costs of procedures, but spared the costs associated to ancillary procedures and stent removals. CONCLUSIONS: XenX confirmed to be a safe and effective device especially for the treatment of upper ureteric tract stones; moreover, XenX may reduce the risk for the need of auxiliary procedures and for the insertion of a JJ stent.
Entities:
Keywords:
Endoscopic lithotripsy; New technology; Preventive retropulsion device; Ureteric stone
Authors: Jeffrey S Barkun; Jeffrey K Aronson; Liane S Feldman; Guy J Maddern; Steven M Strasberg; Douglas G Altman; Jeffrey S Barkun; Jane M Blazeby; Isabell C Boutron; W Bruce Campbell; Pierre-Alain Clavien; Jonathan A Cook; Patrick L Ergina; David R Flum; Paul Glasziou; John C Marshall; Peter McCulloch; Jon Nicholl; Bournaby C Reeves; Christoph M Seiler; Jonathan L Meakins; Deborah Ashby; Nick Black; John Bunker; Martin Burton; Marion Campbell; Kalipso Chalkidou; Iain Chalmers; Marc de Leval; Jon Deeks; Adrian Grant; Muir Gray; Roger Greenhalgh; Milos Jenicek; Sean Kehoe; Richard Lilford; Peter Littlejohns; Yoon Loke; Rajan Madhock; Kim McPherson; Peter Rothwell; Bill Summerskill; David Taggart; Parris Tekkis; Matthew Thompson; Tom Treasure; Ulrich Trohler; Jan Vandenbroucke Journal: Lancet Date: 2009-09-26 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Shivadeo S Bapat; Ketan V Pai; Satyajeet S Purnapatre; Pushkaraj B Yadav; Abhijit S Padye Journal: J Endourol Date: 2007-12 Impact factor: 2.942