Single-use flexible ureteroscope provides an alternative treatment for upper urinary calculi: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Zhang, Fulin; Xu, Jinbin; Liang, Hui

doi:10.1097/md.0000000000034829

Cited by 1 publication

(1 citation statement)

References 27 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…FURS is also widely used to treat kidney stones owing to its advantages of having a slender and soft lens[ 16 ]. However, it is generally not used alone for the treatment of kidney stones with a diameter exceeding 2 cm[ 17 , 18 ]. With advances in medical technology and accumulation of clinical experience, the efficacy of FURS for the treatment of kidney stones of 2–3 cm in diameter has become increasingly recognized[ 17 , 19 , 20 ].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Clinical efficacy and safety of flexible ureteroscopy and percutaneous nephrolithotomy for large kidney stones: A retrospective comparative study

Wang,

Liu,

Cao

et al. 2024

World J Clin Cases

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BACKGROUND Renal stones ranging 20–40 mm are very common in China. Although no large-sample clinical studies have confirmed the clinical efficacy and safety of this method, there is also a lack of comparative data with traditional treatment. AIM To investigate the clinical efficacy of flexible ureteroscopy (FURS) and percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL) by postoperative stone clearance and changes in soluble vascular cell adhesion molecule 1 (sVCAM-1) and kidney injury molecule 1 (KIM-1) levels in patients with large kidney stones (> 2 cm in diameter). METHODS This single-center observational study was performed at a Chinese hospital between January 1, 2021, and October 30, 2023. All 250 enrolled patients were diagnosed with large kidney stones (> 2 cm) and divided into a FURS group (n = 145) and a PCNL group (n = 105) by the surgical method. The FURS group was treated with flexible ureteroscopy and the PCNL group was treated with percutaneous nephrolithotomy. The operation time, time to palinesthesia, intraoperative blood loss, drop in hemoglobin, length of hospital stay, stone clearance rate, and complications were recorded in the two groups. Preoperative and postoperative serum sVCAM-1 levels, erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR), urine KIM-1 levels, preoperative and postoperative pain visual analog scale (VAS) and Wisconsin quality of life questionnaire (WISQOL) scores were also documented. RESULTS All 250 eligible patients completed the follow-up. There were no significant differences in baseline characteristics between the two groups (P > 0.05). The operation time in the FURS group was significantly greater than that in the PCNL group. The time to ambulation, intraoperative blood loss, decrease in hemoglobin, and length of hospital stay were significantly lower in the FURS group than in the PCNL group. The FURS group also had a significantly higher stone clearance rate and a lower incidence of postoperative complications. There was no significant difference in antibiotic use between the groups. Postoperative serum sVCAM-1 levels, urine KIM-1 levels, and VAS scores were lower in the FURS group than in the PCNL group, but postoperative ESR and WISQOL scores were greater in the FURS group than in the PCNL group. CONCLUSION FURS demonstrated superior clinical efficacy in treating large kidney stones (> 2 cm in diameter) compared PCNL. It not only improved the postoperative stone clearance rate and reduced complications and recovery time but also positively affected serum SCM-1, ESR, and urine KIM-1 levels, subsequent improvement of patient quality of life.

show abstract