The efficacy and safety of three different single-use ureteroscopes in retrograde intrarenal surgery: a comparative analysis of a single surgeon’s experience in a single center

Basit Öğe Kaydı
dc.contributor.authorŞahin, Mehmet Fatih
dc.contributor.authorTopkaç, Erdem Can
dc.contributor.authorŞeramet, Serkan
dc.contributor.authorDoğan, Çağrı
dc.contributor.authorYazıcı, Cenk Murat
dc.date.accessioned2024-10-29T17:43:25Z
dc.date.available2024-10-29T17:43:25Z
dc.date.issued2024
dc.departmentTekirdağ Namık Kemal Üniversitesi
dc.description.abstractPurpose: To evaluate and compare the clinical results of different single-use flexible ureteroscopes (su-fURS) used in retrograde intrarenal surgery (RIRS). Materials and methods: RIRS cases performed identically by an experienced surgeon between 2022 and 2023 in a single center were retrospectively analyzed. These surgeries were performed with three su-fURS (Redpine RP-U-C12, Hugemed HU30, and Pusen Uscope 3022 A). In the study, the age, gender, body mass index, and Charlson comorbidity index of the patients were compared, along with their clinical details, such as the stone size, volume, density, location, and history of hydronephrosis or a double J stent or SWL. Operation time, stone-free rates (SFR), perioperative and postoperative complications, and hospitalization times were also compared. Results: The study included 208 patients. Pusen had 63 cases, Hugemed had 62, and Redpine had 83. The comparison of the patient’s demographic and clinical properties with stone-related variables was similar between the groups. The SFR was similar between the groups (p = 0.056). Perioperative, postoperative, and total complication rates and the need for a second intervention showed no significant differences among the three groups (p = 0.324, 0.088, 0.061, and 0.052, respectively). Conclusion: In the first study comparing the clinical results of cases in which different su-fURS were used, no difference was observed in surgical outcomes and complications, even though the technical features of these devices were different. Urologists should select su-fURS based on clinical requirements, financial constraints, and personal experiences. © The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2024.
dc.identifier.doi10.1007/s00345-024-05283-9
dc.identifier.issn0724-4983
dc.identifier.issue1en_US
dc.identifier.pmid39422797
dc.identifier.scopus2-s2.0-85206837141
dc.identifier.scopusqualityQ1
dc.identifier.urihttps://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-024-05283-9
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/20.500.11776/12346
dc.identifier.volume42
dc.indekslendigikaynakScopus
dc.indekslendigikaynakPubMed
dc.language.isoen
dc.publisherSpringer Science and Business Media Deutschland GmbH
dc.relation.ispartofWorld Journal of Urology
dc.relation.publicationcategoryMakale - Uluslararası Hakemli Dergi - Kurum Öğretim Elemanıen_US
dc.rightsinfo:eu-repo/semantics/closedAccess
dc.subjectDisposable
dc.subjectHugemed
dc.subjectPusen
dc.subjectRedpine
dc.subjectRetrograde intrarenal surgery
dc.subjectSingle use
dc.subjectUreteroscope
dc.titleThe efficacy and safety of three different single-use ureteroscopes in retrograde intrarenal surgery: a comparative analysis of a single surgeon’s experience in a single center
dc.typeArticle

Dosyalar

Koleksiyon

Scopus İndeksli Yayınlar Koleksiyonu
PubMed İndeksli Yayın Koleksiyonu