Complications of stone baskets: 14-year review of the manufacturer and user facility device experience database.

PURPOSE We categorized trends in failure of the stone baskets as reported in the United States Food and Drug Administration Manufacturer and User Facility Device Experience database. MATERIALS AND METHODS We queried the online database using the code for stone baskets (FFL) from January 1996 to December 2009. Variables extracted were the type of basket, malfunction and treatment, and patient outcome. RESULTS We identified 556 adverse events related to stone baskets. The device configuration was tipped in 48% of cases, tipless in 36%, forceps in 8% and the Stone Cone™ in 8%. Malfunction type included detachment of a portion of the basket in 49% of cases, breakage without detachment in 39% and inability to withdraw the basket in 12%. Compared to the early period studied (1996 to 2004) there was a 3-fold increase in adverse events from 2005 to 2007 and a 6-fold increase from 2008 to 2009. Of adverse events 79% and 11% were managed by endoscopy and open surgery, respectively. Of the patients 42 experienced serious complications requiring major surgery, including ureteral reconstruction in 7, reimplantation in 4 and nephrectomy in 7. CONCLUSIONS With the increased use of stone baskets in the upper collecting system the number of adverse events has increased. Urologists should remain vigilant to prevent, recognize and manage these events.

[1]  D. Bagley,et al.  Changing trends in the use of ureteroscopic instruments from 1996 to 2008. , 2010, Journal of endourology.

[2]  M. Monga,et al.  Comparison of tipless and helical baskets in an in vitro ureteral model. , 2004, Urology.

[3]  R. Hauser,et al.  Deaths associated with implantable cardioverter defibrillator failure and deactivation reported in the United States Food and Drug Administration Manufacturer and User Facility Device Experience Database. , 2004, Heart rhythm.

[4]  M. Ellik Stones in the ureter; their extraction by looped catheter. , 1947, Transactions. American Urological Association. Western Section.

[5]  J. Teichman,et al.  Use of the holmium:YAG laser for the impacted stone basket. , 2000, The Journal of urology.

[6]  D. Bagley,et al.  Retrieval capabilities of different stone basket designs in vitro. , 1999, Journal of endourology.

[7]  J. Wolf,et al.  Treatment selection and outcomes: ureteral calculi. , 2007, The Urologic clinics of North America.

[8]  P. Alken,et al.  Comparative investigations on the retrieval capabilities of various baskets and graspers in four ex vivo models. , 2002, European Urology.

[9]  B. Eisner,et al.  Effect of laser insult on devices used to prevent stone retropulsion during ureteroscopic lithotripsy. , 2009, Journal of endourology.

[10]  M. Moran,et al.  Current trends in ureteroscopy. , 2004, The Urologic clinics of North America.

[11]  D. Bagley,et al.  Retrieval and releasing capabilities of stone-basket designs in vitro. , 2005, Journal of endourology.

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

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

[14]  R. Honey Assessment of a new tipless nitinol stone basket and comparison with an existing flat-wire basket. , 1998, Journal of endourology.

[15]  J. Lingeman,et al.  Ureteral Stones Clinical Guidelines Panel summary report on the management of ureteral calculi. The American Urological Association. , 1997, The Journal of urology.

[16]  M. Monga,et al.  In vitro evaluation of ureteral perforation forces. , 2007, Urology.

[17]  J. Wolf,et al.  Complications of ureteroscopy: analysis of predictive factors. , 2001, The Journal of urology.