Cargando…

Differences in renal stone treatment and outcomes for patients treated either with or without the support of a ureteral access sheath: The Clinical Research Office of the Endourological Society Ureteroscopy Global Study

PURPOSE: To describe the differences in the treatment and the outcomes of renal stones treated with flexible ureteroscopy (URS) either with or without the support of a ureteral access sheath (UAS). METHODS: The Clinical Research Office of the Endourological Society URS Global Study involved the coll...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Traxer, Olivier, Wendt-Nordahl, Gunnar, Sodha, Hiren, Rassweiler, Jens, Meretyk, Shimon, Tefekli, Ahmet, Coz, Fernando, de la Rosette, Jean J.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Springer Berlin Heidelberg 2015
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4655002/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25971204
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00345-015-1582-8
_version_ 1782402128940105728
author Traxer, Olivier
Wendt-Nordahl, Gunnar
Sodha, Hiren
Rassweiler, Jens
Meretyk, Shimon
Tefekli, Ahmet
Coz, Fernando
de la Rosette, Jean J.
author_facet Traxer, Olivier
Wendt-Nordahl, Gunnar
Sodha, Hiren
Rassweiler, Jens
Meretyk, Shimon
Tefekli, Ahmet
Coz, Fernando
de la Rosette, Jean J.
author_sort Traxer, Olivier
collection PubMed
description PURPOSE: To describe the differences in the treatment and the outcomes of renal stones treated with flexible ureteroscopy (URS) either with or without the support of a ureteral access sheath (UAS). METHODS: The Clinical Research Office of the Endourological Society URS Global Study involved the collection of prospective data from consecutive patients treated with URS at centers around the world over a 1-year period. Baseline characteristics, stone location, treatment details, postoperative outcomes and complications were recorded. Inverse-probability-weighted regression adjustment (IPWRA) analyses were conducted on outcome from patients treated with or without the use of a UAS to determine the impact on stone-free rates (SFRs). RESULTS: Of 2239 patients treated with flexible URS, 1494 (67 %) patients were treated with the use of a UAS and 745 (33 %) without a UAS. The IPWRA analyses conducted on 1827 patients with complete data and based on treatment and outcome models showed that if URS procedures were performed without the use of an UAS, the average stone-free rate would be 0.504 compared with 0.753 with a UAS. This average treatment effect of 0.248 was not significant (P = 0.604). Using IPWRA analysis on only the treated population in the estimations revealed no significant difference between using and not using a UAS (31 %; ATET: 0.311; P = 0.523). CONCLUSIONS: The study showed no difference in SFR when a UAS was used or not. Whereas UAS did not increase the risk of ureteral damage or bleeding, postoperative infectious complications were reduced.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-4655002
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2015
publisher Springer Berlin Heidelberg
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-46550022015-11-27 Differences in renal stone treatment and outcomes for patients treated either with or without the support of a ureteral access sheath: The Clinical Research Office of the Endourological Society Ureteroscopy Global Study Traxer, Olivier Wendt-Nordahl, Gunnar Sodha, Hiren Rassweiler, Jens Meretyk, Shimon Tefekli, Ahmet Coz, Fernando de la Rosette, Jean J. World J Urol Original Article PURPOSE: To describe the differences in the treatment and the outcomes of renal stones treated with flexible ureteroscopy (URS) either with or without the support of a ureteral access sheath (UAS). METHODS: The Clinical Research Office of the Endourological Society URS Global Study involved the collection of prospective data from consecutive patients treated with URS at centers around the world over a 1-year period. Baseline characteristics, stone location, treatment details, postoperative outcomes and complications were recorded. Inverse-probability-weighted regression adjustment (IPWRA) analyses were conducted on outcome from patients treated with or without the use of a UAS to determine the impact on stone-free rates (SFRs). RESULTS: Of 2239 patients treated with flexible URS, 1494 (67 %) patients were treated with the use of a UAS and 745 (33 %) without a UAS. The IPWRA analyses conducted on 1827 patients with complete data and based on treatment and outcome models showed that if URS procedures were performed without the use of an UAS, the average stone-free rate would be 0.504 compared with 0.753 with a UAS. This average treatment effect of 0.248 was not significant (P = 0.604). Using IPWRA analysis on only the treated population in the estimations revealed no significant difference between using and not using a UAS (31 %; ATET: 0.311; P = 0.523). CONCLUSIONS: The study showed no difference in SFR when a UAS was used or not. Whereas UAS did not increase the risk of ureteral damage or bleeding, postoperative infectious complications were reduced. Springer Berlin Heidelberg 2015-05-14 2015 /pmc/articles/PMC4655002/ /pubmed/25971204 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00345-015-1582-8 Text en © The Author(s) 2015 Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made.
spellingShingle Original Article
Traxer, Olivier
Wendt-Nordahl, Gunnar
Sodha, Hiren
Rassweiler, Jens
Meretyk, Shimon
Tefekli, Ahmet
Coz, Fernando
de la Rosette, Jean J.
Differences in renal stone treatment and outcomes for patients treated either with or without the support of a ureteral access sheath: The Clinical Research Office of the Endourological Society Ureteroscopy Global Study
title Differences in renal stone treatment and outcomes for patients treated either with or without the support of a ureteral access sheath: The Clinical Research Office of the Endourological Society Ureteroscopy Global Study
title_full Differences in renal stone treatment and outcomes for patients treated either with or without the support of a ureteral access sheath: The Clinical Research Office of the Endourological Society Ureteroscopy Global Study
title_fullStr Differences in renal stone treatment and outcomes for patients treated either with or without the support of a ureteral access sheath: The Clinical Research Office of the Endourological Society Ureteroscopy Global Study
title_full_unstemmed Differences in renal stone treatment and outcomes for patients treated either with or without the support of a ureteral access sheath: The Clinical Research Office of the Endourological Society Ureteroscopy Global Study
title_short Differences in renal stone treatment and outcomes for patients treated either with or without the support of a ureteral access sheath: The Clinical Research Office of the Endourological Society Ureteroscopy Global Study
title_sort differences in renal stone treatment and outcomes for patients treated either with or without the support of a ureteral access sheath: the clinical research office of the endourological society ureteroscopy global study
topic Original Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4655002/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25971204
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00345-015-1582-8
work_keys_str_mv AT traxerolivier differencesinrenalstonetreatmentandoutcomesforpatientstreatedeitherwithorwithoutthesupportofaureteralaccesssheaththeclinicalresearchofficeoftheendourologicalsocietyureteroscopyglobalstudy
AT wendtnordahlgunnar differencesinrenalstonetreatmentandoutcomesforpatientstreatedeitherwithorwithoutthesupportofaureteralaccesssheaththeclinicalresearchofficeoftheendourologicalsocietyureteroscopyglobalstudy
AT sodhahiren differencesinrenalstonetreatmentandoutcomesforpatientstreatedeitherwithorwithoutthesupportofaureteralaccesssheaththeclinicalresearchofficeoftheendourologicalsocietyureteroscopyglobalstudy
AT rassweilerjens differencesinrenalstonetreatmentandoutcomesforpatientstreatedeitherwithorwithoutthesupportofaureteralaccesssheaththeclinicalresearchofficeoftheendourologicalsocietyureteroscopyglobalstudy
AT meretykshimon differencesinrenalstonetreatmentandoutcomesforpatientstreatedeitherwithorwithoutthesupportofaureteralaccesssheaththeclinicalresearchofficeoftheendourologicalsocietyureteroscopyglobalstudy
AT tefekliahmet differencesinrenalstonetreatmentandoutcomesforpatientstreatedeitherwithorwithoutthesupportofaureteralaccesssheaththeclinicalresearchofficeoftheendourologicalsocietyureteroscopyglobalstudy
AT cozfernando differencesinrenalstonetreatmentandoutcomesforpatientstreatedeitherwithorwithoutthesupportofaureteralaccesssheaththeclinicalresearchofficeoftheendourologicalsocietyureteroscopyglobalstudy
AT delarosettejeanj differencesinrenalstonetreatmentandoutcomesforpatientstreatedeitherwithorwithoutthesupportofaureteralaccesssheaththeclinicalresearchofficeoftheendourologicalsocietyureteroscopyglobalstudy