For Publishers
DiscoveryMetadataPeer reviewHostingPublishing
For Researchers
JoinPublishReviewCollect
Register
Blog
About
Search
Advanced search
My ScienceOpen
Search
For Publishers
For Researchers
Blog
About
8
views
9
references
 Top references
cited by
3
    
0 reviews
 Review
0
comments
 Comment
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
1 collections
    0
    shares
      58
      similar
       All similar
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Ureteral access sheaths: a comprehensive comparison of physical and mechanical properties

      research-article

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPMC
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          ABSTRACT

          Introduction:

          Ureteral access sheaths (UAS) facilitate flexible ureteroscopy in the treat- ment of urolithiasis. The physical properties of UAS vary by manufacturer and model. We compared three new UAS: Glideway (GW, Terumo, 11/13Fr, 12/14Fr), Pathway (PW, Terumo 12/14F) and Navigator HD (NHD, Boston Scientific, 11/13Fr, 12/14Fr) in the domains of safety characteristics, positioning characteristics, lubricity and radio- opacity.

          Materials and Methods:

          In vitro testing of the three UAS included safety testing-tip perforation force, sheath edge deformation and dilator extraction forces. Positioning characteristics tested included tip bending, stiffness (resistance to coaxial buckling forces), kinking (resistance to perpendicular forces), and insertion forces. Lubricity was assessed by measured frictional forces of the outer sheath. Finally, radio-opacity was tested utilizing fluoroscopic imaging of the three 12F sheaths and inner dilators.

          Results:

          The PW (0.245 lb) and GW (0.286 lb) required less force for tip perforation compared to the NHD (0.628 lb). The NHD sheath edge deformation was mild compared to more severe deformation for the PW and GW. The PW (1.008 lb) required greater force than the GW (0.136 lb) and NHD (0.043 lb) for inner dilator removal. The GW (3.69 lbs) and NHD (4.17 lb) had similar inner dilator tip stiffness when bent, while the PW had the weakest inner dilator tip, 1.91 lbs. The PW (0.271 lb) was most susceptible to buckling and kinking (1.626 lb). The most lubricious UAS was the NHD (0.055 lbs for 12F). The NHD (0.277 lbs) required the least insertional force through a biological model and possessed the greatest radio-opacity.

          Conclusions:

          Comparison of different commercially available UAS in various sizes reveals that there are mechanical differences in sheaths that may play a role clinically. The Terumo sheaths' (GW and PW) were outperformed by the Boston Scientific NHD in simulating safety, ease of use and radio-opacity.

          Related collections

          Most cited references9

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Ureteral access sheath provides protection against elevated renal pressures during routine flexible ureteroscopic stone manipulation.

          B Auge, Glenn Preminger, Sumal V. Raj … (2004)
          New-generation flexible ureteroscopes allow the management of proximal ureteral and intrarenal pathology with high success rates, including complete removal of ureteral and renal calculi. One problem is that the irrigation pressures generated within the collecting system can be significantly elevated, as evidenced by pyelovenous and pyelolymphatic backflow seen during retrograde pyelography. We sought to determine if the ureteral access sheath (UAS) can offer protection from high intrarenal pressures attained during routine ureteroscopic stone surgery. Five patients (average age 72.6 years) evaluated in the emergency department for obstructing calculi underwent percutaneous nephrostomy (PCN) tube placement to decompress their collecting systems. The indications for PCN tube placement were obstructive renal failure (N=1), urosepsis (N=2), and obstruction with uncontrolled pain and elevated white blood cell counts (N=2). Flexible ureteroscopy was subsequently performed with and without the aid of the UAS while pressures were measured via the nephrostomy tube connected to a pressure transducer. Pressures were recorded at baseline and in the distal, mid, and proximal ureter and renal pelvis, first without the UAS, and then with the UAS in place. The average baseline pressure within the collecting system was 13.6 mm Hg. The mean intrarenal pressure with the ureteroscope in the distal ureter without the UAS was 60 mm Hg and with the UAS was 15 mm Hg. With the ureteroscope in the midureter, the pressures were 65.6 and 17.5 mm Hg, respectively; with the ureteroscope in the proximal ureter 79.2 and 24 mm Hg, and with the ureteroscope in the renal pelvis 94.4 and 40.6 mm Hg, respectively. All differences at each location were statistically significant (P<0.008). Compared with baseline, all pressures measured without the UAS were significantly greater, but only pressures recorded in the proximal ureter and renal pelvis after UAS insertion were significantly higher (P<0.03). The irrigation pressures transmitted to the renal pelvis and subsequently to the parenchyma are significantly greater during routine URS without the use of the UAS. The access sheath is potentially protective against pyelovenous and pyelolymphatic backflow, with clinical implications for the ureteroscopic management of upper-tract transitional cell carcinoma, struvite stones, or calculi associated with urinary tract infection.
          Article 0 comments Cited 63 times – based on 0 reviews     Review now
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Complications of 2735 retrograde semirigid ureteroscopy procedures: a single-center experience.

            Victor Mirciulescu, G Nita, Petrisor Geavlete … (2006)
            Ureteroscopy is nowadays one of the techniques most widely used for upper urinary- tract pathology. Our goal is to describe its complications in a large series of patients. Between June 1994 and February 2005, 2436 patients aged 5 to 87 years underwent retrograde ureteroscopy (2735 procedures) under video and fluoroscopic assistance. We used semirigid ureteroscopes (8/9.8F Wolf, 6.5F Olympus, 8F and 10F Storz) for 384 diagnostic and 2351 therapeutic procedures. Upper urinary-tract lithiasis (2041 cases), ureteropelvic junction stenosis (95 cases), benign ureteral stenosis (29 cases), tumoral extrinsic ureteral stenosis (84 cases), iatrogenic trauma (35 cases), superficial ureteral tumors (16 cases), superficial pelvic tumors (7 cases), and ascending displaced stents (44 cases) were the indications. The mean follow-up period was 56 months (range 4-112 months). The rate of intraoperative incidents was 5.9% (162 cases). Intraoperative incidents consisted of the impossibility of accessing calculi (3.7%), trapped stone extractors (0.7%), equipment damage (0.7%), and double- J stent malpositioning (0.76%). In addition, migration of calculi or stone fragments during lithotripsy was apparent in 116 cases (4.24%). The general rate of intraoperative complications was 3.6% (98 cases). We also saw mucosal injury (abrasion [1.5%] or false passage [1%]), ureteral perforation (0.65%), extraureteral stone migration (0.18%), bleeding (0.1%), and ureteral avulsions (0.11%). Early complications were described in 10.64%: fever or sepsis (1.13%), persistent hematuria (2.04%), renal colic (2.23%), migrated double-J stent (0.66%), and transitory vesicoureteral reflux (4.58%, especially in cases with indwelling double-J stents). We also found late complications such as ureteral stenosis (3 cases) and persistent vesicoureteral reflux (2 cases). Most (87%) of the complications followed ureteroscopic therapy for stones. Three fourths (76%) of the complications occurred in the first 5 years of the series. According to our experience, mastery of ureteroscopic technique allows the urologist to proceed endourologically with minimum morbidity. Despite the new smaller semirigid instruments, this minimally invasive maneuver may sometimes be aggressive, and adequate training is imperative.
            Article 0 comments Cited 55 times – based on 0 reviews     Review now
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Which ureteral access sheath is compatible with your flexible ureteroscope?

              Saeed M. Al-Qahtani, Julien Letendre, Pascal Alexandre Thomas … (2014)
              Our aim is to evaluate different ureteral access sheaths (UASs), which are available in the international market and their compatibility with different available flexible ureteroscopes (F-URSs) to help the urologist choose the proper ureteral access sheath for his or her endoscope before commencing the procedure.
              Article 0 comments Cited 22 times – based on 0 reviews     Review now
                Bookmark
                All references

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Journal ID (nlm-ta): Int Braz J Urol
                Journal ID (iso-abbrev): Int Braz J Urol
                Journal ID (publisher-id): ibju
                Title: International Brazilian Journal of Urology : official journal of the Brazilian Society of Urology
                Publisher: Sociedade Brasileira de Urologia
                ISSN (Print): 1677-5538
                ISSN (Electronic): 1677-6119
                Publication date (Print and electronic): May-Jun 2018
                Publication date (Print): May-Jun 2018
                Volume: 44
                Issue: 3
                Pages: 524-535
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Department of Urology, Glickman Urological and Kidney Institute, Cleveland Clinic Foundation, USA
                Author notes
                Correspondence address: Nishant Patel, MD, Department of Urology, Glickman Urological and Kidney Institute, Cleveland Clinic Foundation, 9500 Euclid Ave, Q10-1, Cleveland, OH 44195, USA, Fax: 216-636-0770, E-mail: nishanturo@ 123456gmail.com

                CONFLICT OF INTEREST

                None declared.

                Article
                Publisher ID: S1677-5538.IBJU.2017.0575
                DOI: 10.1590/S1677-5538.IBJU.2017.0575
                PMC ID: 5996793
                PubMed ID: 29493185
                SO-VID: 2b5f00c2-a086-4325-9473-d19893c5db8e
                License:

                This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

                History
                Date received : 26 October 2017
                Date accepted : 09 December 2017
                Page count
                Figures: 7, Tables: 3, Equations: 0, References: 15, Pages: 12
                Categories
                Subject: Original Article

                Keywords: ureteroscopy,ureter,instrumentation [subheading]
                Data availability:
                Keywords: ureteroscopy, ureter, instrumentation [subheading]

                Comments

                Comment on this article

                scite_

                Similar content58

                See all similar

                Cited by3

                See all cited by

                Most referenced authors121

                See all reference authors