This is the authors' abstract. We don't add key points for this paper.
PURPOSE: Ureteral injury is a frequent complication of ureteral access sheath deployment. We sought to define the safe threshold of force for the passage of a ureteral access sheath using a novel ureteral access sheath force sensor. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Ureteral access sheath-force sensor measurements were recorded in 210 renal units. A 16Fr ureteral access sheath was deployed initially based on a prior porcine study. If 6 N was reached, the surgeon was advised to downsize the 16Fr ureteral access sheath. In each case, a post-ureteroscopic lesion scale was recorded. Regression models were used to estimate the impact of adjusted variables on post-ureteroscopic lesion scale grade, 16Fr ureteral access sheath deployment, and peak force. RESULTS: A 16Fr ureteral access sheath was deployed in 127 (61%) renal units with a mean peak force of 5.7 N. Two high-grade ureteral injuries occurred; in both cases >6 N of force was recorded. Post-ureteroscopic lesion scale grade correlated directly with peak insertion force (p <0.01). Bacteriuria within 60 days of the procedure (OR 2.009, p=0.034), combination of preoperative stent plus oral tamsulosin (OR 2.998, p=0.045), and prior ipsilateral stone surgery (OR 2.13, p=0.01) were independent predictors of successful 16Fr ureteral access sheath deployment. Among patients with neither prior ipsilateral stone surgery nor preoperative stent, preoperative tamsulosin facilitated passage of a 16Fr ureteral access sheath (OR 2.750, p=0.034). CONCLUSIONS: Ureteral access sheath associated ureteral injury can be averted by limiting the insertion force to ≤6 N. Prior stone surgery, preoperative indwelling ureteral stent plus oral tamsulosin, and recently treated bacteriuria favored passage of a 16Fr ureteral access sheath. In the naïve, unstented patient, preoperative tamsulosin favored deployment of a 16Fr ureteral access sheath.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Tapiero et al. (2021) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: