Affiliation:
1. SUNY Upstate Medical University
2. Syracuse University
Abstract
Abstract
Background High intrapelvic pressure (IPP) during ureteroscopy can lead to complications such as pyelovenous backflow, bleeding, and infection. Our study aimed at identifying the best cross-section and orientation of a ureteroscope within a Ureteral Access Sheath (UAS) to minimize IPP and maximize outflow. We have also validated our findings by testing a UAS prototype.Materials and Methods To determine the optimal ureteroscope cross-section within a UAS, four ureteroscopes of equivalent cross-sectional area were simulated within a 10 Fr UAS using computational fluid dynamics software COMSOL. We then created a corresponding prototype by securing a 3 − 0 monofilament suture at the inferior aspect of the 12 Fr outer UAS, inducing an offset to the ureteroscope. Mean flow volumes through a 10/12 Fr UAS occupied by a 9.5 Fr single-use flexible ureteroscope were compared (17 iterations) to those through our prototype UAS.Results Compared to a ureteroscope centered in a UAS during simulation, the lowest IPP and highest outflow were seen with an offset circular ureteroscope (41% resistance). The unmodified UAS had an average volume of 30.0 mL/minute (SD +/- 0.35) compared to 33.76 mL/minute (SD +/-0.90) for the modified UAS (P < 0.05).Conclusions We found that using a circular ureteroscope positioned along the sidewall maximizes outflow through a circular UAS. We made modifications to a UAS to offset the ureteroscope and observed a 12.5% increase in outflow. This approach can potentially decrease IPP during ureteroscopy without impacting inflow or the working channel. Although modifying a ureteroscope is more difficult, it could create an offset without reducing UAS cross-section.
Publisher
Research Square Platform LLC
Reference19 articles.
1. Wiener SV, Stoller ML, Boscardin J, Suskind AM. Factors associated with regional adoption of ureteroscopy in California from 2005 to 2016. J Endourol [Internet]. 2018/11/21. 2019 Nov 20;33(1):9–15. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1089/end.2018.0776
2. Scales CD, Krupski TL, Curtis LH, Matlaga B, Lotan Y, Pearle MS, Saigal C, Preminger GM, Urologic Diseases in America Project. Practice variation in the surgical management of urinary lithiasis. J Urol [Internet]. 2011/05/18. 2011 Jul;186(1):146–50. Available from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21575964
3. Oberlin DT, Flum AS, Bachrach L, Matulewicz RS, Flury SC. Contemporary surgical trends in the management of upper tract calculi. J Urol [Internet]. 2014/09/16. 2015;193(3):880–4. Available from: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2014.09.006
4. Jung H, Osther PJS. Intraluminal pressure profiles during flexible ureterorenoscopy. Springerplus [Internet]. 2015/07/29. 2015;4(1):373. Available from: internal-pdf://108.164.199.191/Jung-2015-Intraluminal-pressure-profiles-duri.pdf
5. Differences in renal stone treatment and outcomes for patients treated either with or without the support of a ureteral access sheath: The Clinical Research Office of the Endourological Society Ureteroscopy Global Study;Traxer O;World J Urol [Internet],2015