Literature DB >> 27604670

Robotic Flexible Ureteroscopy Versus Classic Flexible Ureteroscopy in Renal Stones: the Initial Romanian Experience.

Petrişor Geavlete, Remzi Saglam, Dragoş Georgescu, Răzvan Mulţescu, Valentin Iordache, Ahmet Sinan Kabakci, Cosmin Ene, Bogdan Geavlete.   

Abstract

INTRODUCTION: Roboflex Avicenna represents a new device for flexible ureteroscopy, able to provide an efficient lithotripsy for renal calculi, Bucharest being the fourth place in the world where such a device is already in use.
MATERIAL AND METHODS: The study was prospective and included a number of 132 patients equally randomized which underwent standard flexible ureteroscopy and robotic flexible ureteroscopy for renal calculi between July and February 2016. All the procedures were performed with aStorz XC flexible ureteroscope in association with Avicenna Roboflex. Stone fragmentation was performed using a Dornier Medilas 20H, Holmium Laser of 20 watt power and 2.1 µm wavelength.
RESULTS: The mean age was 48 years (range 26-77 years) and the mean stone size was 2.1 cm (range 1.1-3.6 cm) for the first group (FURS), while for the second one (robotic FURS) the mean age was 51 years (range 25-74 years) and the mean stone size was 2.4 cm (range 1.0-3.7 cm). The fragmentation time of the stones was better for robotic FURS (37 min versus 39 min). After 3 months, the stone free rate was 89.4% versus 92.4%, that representing a performance of the robotic technique over the classical one. In some cases were noticed residual fragments smaller than 3 mm, in 13.6% of patients who underwent FURS, respectively in 12.1% of robotic FURS™ cases.
CONCLUSIONS: The robotic treatment of kidney stones represents a comparative alternative to flexible ureteroscopy, with overall similar outcomes. Celsius.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2016        PMID: 27604670

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Chirurgia (Bucur)        ISSN: 1221-9118


  8 in total

Review 1.  The future of robotic surgery.

Authors:  Andrew Brodie; Nikhil Vasdev
Journal:  Ann R Coll Surg Engl       Date:  2018-09       Impact factor: 1.891

Review 2.  Robot-assisted flexible ureteroscopy: an update.

Authors:  Jens Rassweiler; Marcel Fiedler; Nikos Charalampogiannis; Ahmet Sinan Kabakci; Remzi Saglam; Jan-Thorsten Klein
Journal:  Urolithiasis       Date:  2017-11-23       Impact factor: 3.436

Review 3.  The role of robotic surgery in the management of renal tract calculi.

Authors:  Thiru Suntharasivam; Ankur Mukherjee; Angus Luk; Omar Aboumarzouk; Bhaskar Somani; Bhavan Prasad Rai
Journal:  Transl Androl Urol       Date:  2019-09

Review 4.  Surgical ergonomics for urologists: a practical guide.

Authors:  Andrew T Gabrielson; Marisa M Clifton; Christian P Pavlovich; Michael J Biles; Mitchell Huang; Jacqueline Agnew; Phillip M Pierorazio; Brian R Matlaga; Petar Bajic; Zeyad R Schwen
Journal:  Nat Rev Urol       Date:  2021-01-11       Impact factor: 14.432

Review 5.  Retrograde intrarenal surgery: Past, present, and future.

Authors:  Takaaki Inoue; Shinsuke Okada; Shuzo Hamamoto; Masato Fujisawa
Journal:  Investig Clin Urol       Date:  2021-03

6.  Flexible Ureteroscopy and Nephroscopy for Stone Removal in Patients with Multiple Renal Calculi.

Authors:  Bin Zhu; Suibing Zhang
Journal:  Dis Markers       Date:  2022-07-09       Impact factor: 3.464

7.  Robotic flexible ureteroscopy: A new challenge in endourology.

Authors:  Joo Yong Lee; Seung Hyun Jeon
Journal:  Investig Clin Urol       Date:  2022-09

Review 8.  Robotic stone surgery - Current state and future prospects: A systematic review.

Authors:  Philippe F Müller; Daniel Schlager; Simon Hein; Christian Bach; Arkadiusz Miernik; Dominik S Schoeb
Journal:  Arab J Urol       Date:  2017-11-02
  8 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.