Search

INTRODUCTION:Two automated irrigation systems have been released for use during endoscopic procedures such as ureteroscopy: the Cogentix RocaFlow® (CRF) and Thermedx FluidSmart® (TFS). Accurate pressure control using automated systems may help providers maintain irrigation pressures within a safe range while also providing clear visualization. Our objective was to directly compare these systems based on their pressure accuracy, pressure-flow relationships, and fluid heating capabilities in order to help providers better utilize the temperature and pressure settings of each system. MATERIALS AND METHODS:An in vitro ureteroscopy model was used for testing, consisting of a short semirigid ureteroscope (6/7, 5F, 31cm Wolf 425612) connected to a continuous digital pressure transducer (Meriam m1550). Each system pressure output and flow-rate, via 100mL beaker filling time, was measured using multiple trials at pressure settings between 30 and 300mmHg. Output fluid temperature was monitored using a digital thermometer (Omega DP25-TH). RESULTS:The pressure output of both systems exceeded the desired setting across the entire tested range, a difference of 15.7±2.4mmHg for the TFS compared to 5.2±1.5mmHg for the CRF (p < 0.0001). Related to this finding, the TFS also had slightly higher flow rates across all trials (7±2mL/min). Temperature testing revealed a similar maximum temperature of 34.0⁰C with both systems, however, the TFS peaked after only 8 minutes and started to plateau as early as 4-5 minutes into the test, while the CRF took over 18 minutes to reach a similar peak. CONCLUSIONS:Our in vitro ureteroscopy testing found that the CRF system had better pressure accuracy than the TFS system but with noticeably slower fluid heating capabilities. Each system provided steady irrigation at safe pressures within their expected operating parameters with small differences in performance that should not limit their ability to provide steady irrigation at safe pressures.

Introduction: The American Urological Association guidelines state that continuing anticoagulant (AC) and antiplatelet (AP) agents during ureteroscopy (URS) is safe. Through a multi-institutional retrospective study, we sought to determine whether pre-stenting in patients on AP or AC was associated with fewer URS bleeding-related complications. Methods: A series of 8614 URS procedures performed across three institutions (April 2010 to September 2017) was electronically reviewed for AC/AP use at time of URS. Records indicating AC or AP use at time of URS were then manually reviewed to characterize intraoperative and 30-day postoperative (intraoperative bleeding, postoperative hematuria, emergency department visits, hospital readmission, unplanned reoperation, phone calls, and other minor 30-day complications). Results: A total of 293 identified URS procedures were completed on patients on AC/AP therapy—112 cases were on AC only (38 were pre-stented), 158 on AP only (51 pre-stented), and 23 on both AP and AC (8 pre-stented). Patient characteristics and comorbidities were similar between the pre-stented and non-pre-stented groups. For AC and AP subjects, pre-stenting did not decrease the composite risk of bleeding complications (10.3% pre-stent vs 12.2% non-prestent, p = 0.6). Pre-stented patients did have a significantly lower likelihood of requiring an unplanned reoperation (1.0% vs 5.6%, p = 0.04). In the subgroup of patients on AP alone, pre-stented patients had significantly fewer episodes of intraoperative bleeding (0% vs 9%, p = 0.04), unplanned reoperations (0% vs 6.5%, p = 0.02), and 30-day complications (14% vs 27%, p = 0.05). In the subgroup of patients on AC alone, there were no significant differences in outcomes based on stent status. Conclusions: In this multi-institutional study, we found that pre-stenting before URS was not associated with fewer bleeding complications. However, pre-stenting appeared to be associated with improved outcomes for those patients on AP therapy. These results suggest a need for prospective studies to clarify the role of pre-stenting for URS. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: The optimal patient positioning for percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL) based on the complexity of stone burden is not yet defined. Thus, we aimed to evaluate the intraoperative parameters, effectiveness and complications of patients undergoing PCNL between the endoscopic-guided prone split-leg PCNL (ePSL) and the supine PCNL by stratifying patients according to Guy's stone score (GSS)., Materials and Methods: A retrospective chart review was conducted of patients undergoing PCNL at two high-volume tertiary referral centers. At one center, patients underwent PCNL using the ePSL technique, while at the second center, patients underwent PCNL in supine. Patient demographics and stone characteristics, operative details, complications and effectiveness were compared between groups. The impact of obesity was also investigated., Results: Of 830 subjects, a total of 449 (54%) underwent PCNL in ePSL and 381 (46%) in supine. The ePSL group had a greater mean age and body mass index. No statistical differences were found in gender, serum chemistry and Charlson comorbidity index. After stratifying patients by GSS, the differences in baseline stone burden between PSL and supine lost significance and both groups could be compared. Complications were not statistically different between both groups. Univariate analysis demonstrated that multiple tracts and lower pole access were more prevalent in supine. In addition, for GSS1-3, ePSL was correlated with reduced operative time, radiation exposure, length of hospital stay and need for secondary procedure. Multivariate analysis correlated ePSL with lower radiation exposure and need for secondary procedures (p = 0.01). In comparison to the whole trial population, the same tendencies were appreciated for obese cohort., Conclusions: This is the first report focusing on the performance differences between ePSL and supine PCNL stratified by GSS. Both techniques are safe, with a low rate of complications. For GSS1-3, ePSL reduces radiation exposure and requires less need for both multiple access and secondary procedure.