We have located links that may give you full text access.
Ureteral Access Sheath Applicatıon Without Fluoroscopy in Retrograde Intrarenal Surgery.
OBJECTIVE: To compare the results and complications of the two techniques of ureteral access sheath application, with and without using fluoroscopy.
STUDY DESIGN: A comparative study.
PLACE AND DURATION OF STUDY: Department of Urology, Karabuk University Medical Faculty Training and Research Hospital and Ankara Diskapi Yildirim Beyazid Training and Research Hospital between April 2014 and January 2018.
METHODOLOGY: Retrospective evaluation was made of patients applied with retrograde intrarenal surgery using ureteral access sheath (UAS). In Group 1, defined method were used for UAS application without using scopy. In Group 2, following semi-rigid ureterorenoscopy, localisation of guidewire was checked with fluoroscopy. UAS was advanced to ureter over guidewire under fluoroscopy imaging.
RESULTS: Success rate of UAS placement was similar in both groups (p=0.747). The time of UAS placement was 14.75 secs in Group 1 and 14.99 secs in group 2 (p=0.073). Fluoroscopy was not used at all during UAS placement in Group 1. In Group 2, the mean duration of fluoroscopy use was 9.93±3.89 secs. Total stone-free rate was 82.09% and 83.28% in Group 1 and 2, respectively. (p=0.653).
CONCLUSION: The method described in this paper provides protection against radiation exposure for both the patient and the operating team; and prevents potential complications by enabling clear evaluation of ureteral orifice. Key Words: Renal stone surgery, Retrograde ıntrarenal surgery, Radiation protection, Flouroscopy, Radiation free.
STUDY DESIGN: A comparative study.
PLACE AND DURATION OF STUDY: Department of Urology, Karabuk University Medical Faculty Training and Research Hospital and Ankara Diskapi Yildirim Beyazid Training and Research Hospital between April 2014 and January 2018.
METHODOLOGY: Retrospective evaluation was made of patients applied with retrograde intrarenal surgery using ureteral access sheath (UAS). In Group 1, defined method were used for UAS application without using scopy. In Group 2, following semi-rigid ureterorenoscopy, localisation of guidewire was checked with fluoroscopy. UAS was advanced to ureter over guidewire under fluoroscopy imaging.
RESULTS: Success rate of UAS placement was similar in both groups (p=0.747). The time of UAS placement was 14.75 secs in Group 1 and 14.99 secs in group 2 (p=0.073). Fluoroscopy was not used at all during UAS placement in Group 1. In Group 2, the mean duration of fluoroscopy use was 9.93±3.89 secs. Total stone-free rate was 82.09% and 83.28% in Group 1 and 2, respectively. (p=0.653).
CONCLUSION: The method described in this paper provides protection against radiation exposure for both the patient and the operating team; and prevents potential complications by enabling clear evaluation of ureteral orifice. Key Words: Renal stone surgery, Retrograde ıntrarenal surgery, Radiation protection, Flouroscopy, Radiation free.
Full text links
Related Resources
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app
All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.
By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.
Your Privacy Choices
You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app