J 2018

Worldwide Use of Antiretropulsive Techniques: Observations from the Clinical Research Office of the Endourological Society Ureteroscopy Global Study

SAUSSINE, C., S. ANDONIAN, Dalibor PACÍK, M. POPIOLEK, A. CELIA et. al.

Basic information

Original name

Worldwide Use of Antiretropulsive Techniques: Observations from the Clinical Research Office of the Endourological Society Ureteroscopy Global Study

Authors

SAUSSINE, C. (250 France), S. ANDONIAN (124 Canada), Dalibor PACÍK (203 Czech Republic, belonging to the institution), M. POPIOLEK (752 Sweden), A. CELIA (380 Italy), N. BUCHHOLZ (784 United Arab Emirates), P. SOUNTOULIDES (300 Greece), B. PETRUT (642 Romania) and Jean J.M.C.H. DE LA ROSETTE (528 Netherlands, guarantor)

Edition

Journal of endourology. New York, Mary Ann Liebert Inc. 2018, 0892-7790

Other information

Language

English

Type of outcome

Článek v odborném periodiku

Field of Study

30217 Urology and nephrology

Country of publisher

United States of America

Confidentiality degree

není předmětem státního či obchodního tajemství

Impact factor

Impact factor: 2.267

RIV identification code

RIV/00216224:14110/18:00102913

Organization unit

Faculty of Medicine

UT WoS

000422642200001

Keywords in English

antiretropulsion; migration; ureteroscopy; stone cone; Ntrap; basket

Tags

International impact, Reviewed
Změněno: 11/2/2019 16:03, Soňa Böhmová

Abstract

V originále

Introduction: Retropulsion, defined as unintended migration of a stone under the influence of the fragmentation device in ureteroscopy (URS) procedures, occurs in 2% to 60% of the cases. Antiretropulsive devices (ARDs) have been studied in experimental and small clinical studies. The current study aims at describing the worldwide usage of ARD and the outcomes related to their usage. Methods: The Clinical Research Office of the Endourological Society URS Global Study enrolled 11,885 patients who underwent URS and stone fragmentation for ureteral and/or renal stones. Of the 11,885 treated patients, 9877 were treated for ureteral stones, and data were available on stone migration and ARD use. Results: Of all procedures, 14.5% were performed with the use of an ARD. Less stone migration (-2.0%; p=0.050), higher stone-free rates (SFRs) (2.8%; p<0.001), and shorter length of stay (-4.7%; p=0.001) were observed in the antiretropulsive group. Conclusions: When an ARD is used during URS, less migration, higher SFRs, and shorter length of hospital stay are observed. This effect is independent from baseline differences and corrected for other treatment characteristics.