Urology Annals
About UA | Search | Ahead of print | Current Issue | Archives | Instructions | Online submissionLogin 
Urology Annals
  Editorial Board | Subscribe | Advertise | Contact
Users Online: 680   Home Print this page  Email this page Small font size Default font size Increase font size
 
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
Ahead of Print

Failure of ureteral access sheath insertion in virgin ureters: A retrospective tertiary care center study


1 Department of Urology, College of Medicine, Majmaah University, Al Majma'ah, Saudi Arabia
2 Division of Urology, Department of Surgery, Ministry of the National Guard - Health Affairs; King Abdullah International Medical Research Center (KAIMRC), Riyadh, Saudi Arabia
3 Division of Urology, Department of Surgery, Ministry of the National Guard - Health Affairs; King Abdullah International Medical Research Center (KAIMRC); College of Medicine, King Saud bin Abdulaziz University for Health Sciences (KSAU-HS), Riyadh, Saudi Arabia

Correspondence Address:
Mohammad Alkhamees,
Assistant Professor, Department of Urology, College of Medicine, Majmaah University, Al-Majmaah 11952
Saudi Arabia
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None

DOI: 10.4103/UA.UA_94_20

Objective: The objective of the study was to identify the failure rate of insertion of ureteral access sheath (UAS) during primary flexible ureteroscopy (FURS). Materials and Methods: This was a single-surgeon, single-tertiary care center retrospective study. All patients who underwent primary FURS for proximal ureteric or renal stones from November 2014 to May 2018 were included in the study. Patients with a stone burden of more than 20 mm were excluded from the study. A 10/12-Fr coaxial UAS (Bi-Flex, Rocamed) was used. Data collection included age, sex, body mass index (BMI), stone burden and location, previous spontaneous passage of stones, type of anesthesia, and preexisting congenital anomalies. The Chi-square test and t-test were used for the statistical analyses. Results: One hundred and twelve patients were included in the study. All patients underwent primary FURS. The failure rate of primary UAS insertion was 10.7% (n = 12). No statistically significant difference was found in age, BMI, type of anesthesia, previous history of spontaneous stone passage, and stone burden between the success and failure groups (P > 0.05). Conclusions: We believe that our study opens the door for a multicentric prospective trial. Identifying factors leading to a failed primary FURS and UAS insertion is crucial to properly counsel patients preoperatively about the number of procedures that they might need and to prevent the financial loss associated with failed UAS insertion.


Print this article
Search
 Back
 
  Search Pubmed for
 
    -  Alkhamees M
    -  Aljuhayman A
    -  Addar A
    -  Ghazwani Y
    -  Alasker A
    -  Hamri SB
 Citation Manager
 Article Access Statistics
 Reader Comments
 * Requires registration (Free)
 

 Article Access Statistics
    Viewed52    
    PDF Downloaded5    

Recommend this journal