Worldwide Use of Antiretropulsive Techniques: Observations from the Clinical Research Office of the Endourological Society Ureteroscopy Global Study.

INTRODUCTION Retropulsion, defined as unintended migration of a stone under the influence of the fragmentation device in ureteroscopy (URS) procedures, occurs in 2% to 60% of the cases. Antiretropulsive devices (ARDs) have been studied in experimental and small clinical studies. The current study aims at describing the worldwide usage of ARD and the outcomes related to their usage. METHODS The Clinical Research Office of the Endourological Society URS Global Study enrolled 11,885 patients who underwent URS and stone fragmentation for ureteral and/or renal stones. Of the 11,885 treated patients, 9877 were treated for ureteral stones, and data were available on stone migration and ARD use. RESULTS Of all procedures, 14.5% were performed with the use of an ARD. Less stone migration (-2.0%; p = 0.050), higher stone-free rates (SFRs) (2.8%; p < 0.001), and shorter length of stay (-4.7%; p = 0.001) were observed in the antiretropulsive group. CONCLUSIONS When an ARD is used during URS, less migration, higher SFRs, and shorter length of hospital stay are observed. This effect is independent from baseline differences and corrected for other treatment characteristics.

[1]  I. Tack,et al.  The Cumulated Stone Diameter: A Limited Tool for Stone Burden Estimation. , 2015, Urology.

[2]  T. Dawod,et al.  Safety and efficacy of using the stone cone and an entrapment and extraction device in ureteroscopic lithotripsy for ureteric stones , 2015, Arab journal of urology.

[3]  Ronald Sroka,et al.  Impact of pulse duration on Ho:YAG laser lithotripsy: fragmentation and dusting performance , 2014, World Journal of Urology.

[4]  Zhihong Zhang,et al.  Clinical efficacy, safety, and costs of percutaneous occlusive balloon catheter-assisted ureteroscopic lithotripsy for large impacted proximal ureteral calculi: a prospective, randomized study. , 2014, Journal of endourology.

[5]  M. Pearle,et al.  The clinical research office of the endourological society ureteroscopy global study: indications, complications, and outcomes in 11,885 patients. , 2014, Journal of endourology.

[6]  TraxerOlivier,et al.  The Clinical Research Office of the Endourological Society Ureteroscopy Global Study: Indications, Complications, and Outcomes in 11,885 Patients , 2014 .

[7]  M. Monga,et al.  Controversies in ureteroscopy: Wire, basket, and sheath , 2013, Indian journal of urology : IJU : journal of the Urological Society of India.

[8]  B. Eisner,et al.  Cost-effectiveness of anti-retropulsion devices for ureteroscopic lithotripsy. , 2013, The Journal of urology.

[9]  Ulf Leichtle,et al.  1.2 French stone retrieval baskets further enhance irrigation flow in flexible ureterorenoscopy , 2013, Urolithiasis.

[10]  M. Monga,et al.  Safety and efficacy of a novel ureteral occlusion device. , 2012, Urology.

[11]  Francesco Porpiglia,et al.  Contemporary management of ureteral stones. , 2012, European urology.

[12]  M. Bastawisy,et al.  A comparison of Stone Cone versus lidocaine jelly in the prevention of ureteral stone migration during ureteroscopic lithotripsy , 2011, Therapeutic advances in urology.

[13]  R. Khanna,et al.  Instrumentation in endourology , 2011, Therapeutic advances in urology.

[14]  Ronald Sroka,et al.  Impact of collateral damage to endourologic tools during laser lithotripsy--in vitro comparison of three different clinical laser systems. , 2011, Journal of endourology.

[15]  U. Nagele,et al.  Flow matters: irrigation flow differs in flexible ureteroscopes of the newest generation , 2011, Urological Research.

[16]  Chien-Hsing Chang,et al.  Randomized trial of NTrap for proximal ureteral stones. , 2011, Urology.

[17]  Sixing Yang,et al.  Retrograde ureteroscopic treatment for upper ureteral stones: a 5-year retrospective study. , 2010, Journal of endourology.

[18]  W. Durfee,et al.  Systematic evaluation of ureteral occlusion devices: insertion, deployment, stone migration, and extraction. , 2009, Urology.

[19]  O. Elashry,et al.  A randomized prospective controlled study for assessment of different ureteral occlusion devices in prevention of stone migration during pneumatic lithotripsy. , 2009, Urology.

[20]  Geoffrey N. Box,et al.  In vitro evaluation of nitinol urological retrieval coil and ureteral occlusion device: retropulsion and holmium laser fragmentation efficiency. , 2008, The Journal of urology.

[21]  Ralph V Clayman,et al.  Effect of holmium:YAG laser pulse width on lithotripsy retropulsion in vitro. , 2005, Journal of endourology.

[22]  T. Turk,et al.  Assessment of novel ureteral occlusion device and comparison with stone cone in prevention of stone fragment migration during lithotripsy. , 2005, Journal of endourology.

[23]  A. Papatsoris,et al.  Prevention of retrograde calculus migration with the Stone Cone , 2005, Urological Research.

[24]  N. Demartines,et al.  Classification of Surgical Complications: A New Proposal With Evaluation in a Cohort of 6336 Patients and Results of a Survey , 2004, Annals of Surgery.

[25]  D. Albala,et al.  Use of Stone Cone minimizes stone migration during percutaneous nephrolithotomy. , 2004, Urology.

[26]  M. Blute,et al.  Ureteroscopy: effect of technology and technique on clinical practice. , 2003, The Journal of urology.

[27]  M. Desai,et al.  The Dretler stone cone: a device to prevent ureteral stone migration-the initial clinical experience. , 2002, The Journal of urology.

[28]  Stephen Leslie Re: The stone cone: a new generation of basketry. , 2002, The Journal of urology.

[29]  S. Dretler,et al.  The stone cone: a new generation of basketry. , 2001, The Journal of urology.

[30]  G. Preminger,et al.  Clinical efficacy of combined lithoclast and lithovac stone removal during ureteroscopy. , 2000, The Journal of urology.

[31]  J. Sanabria,et al.  Proposed classification of complications of surgery with examples of utility in cholecystectomy. , 1992, Surgery.