| Autor: |
Davis, N. F., Quinlan, M. R., Browne, C., Bhatt, N. R., Manecksha, R. P., D’Arcy, F. T., Lawrentschuk, N., Bolton, D. M. |
| Předmět: |
|
| Zdroj: |
World Journal of Urology; Apr2018, Vol. 36 Issue 4, p529-536, 8p |
| Abstrakt: |
Purpose: Data assessing the effectiveness of single-use flexible ureteropyeloscopy (FURS) are limited. This study evaluates and compares single-use FURS with conventional reusable FURS.Methods: A systematic search using electronic databases (Pubmed and Embase) was performed for studies evaluating single-use FURS in the setting of urinary tract stone disease. Outcome measures included a comparative evaluation of their mechanical, optical and clinical outcomes.Results: Eleven studies on 466 patients met inclusion criteria. In vitro comparative data were available on three single-use flexible ureteropyeloscopes (LithoVue™, Polyscope™ and SemiFlex™) and clinical data were available on two (LithoVue™ and Polyscope™). The overall stone-free rate and complication rate associated with single-use FURS was 87 ± 15% and 9.3 ± 9%, respectively. There were no significant differences in procedure duration, stone size, stone clearance and complication rates when single-use FURS and reusable FURS were compared (duration: 73 ± 27 versus 74 ± 13 min, p = 0.99; stone size: 1.36 ± 0.2 versus 1.34 ± 0.18 cm, p = 0.93; stone-free rate: 77.8 ± 18 versus 68.5 ± 33%, p = 0.76; complication rate 15.3 ± 10.6 versus 15 ± 1.6%, p = 0.3).Conclusions: Single-use FURS demonstrates comparable efficacy with reusable FURS in treating renal calculi. Further studies on clinical efficacy and cost are needed to determine whether single-use FURS will reliably replace its reusable counterpart. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR] |
| Databáze: |
Complementary Index |
| Externí odkaz: |
|
Full text from SpringerLink