Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Use of XenX™, the latest ureteric occlusion device with guide wire utility: results from a prospective multicentric comparative study.
Sanguedolce, Francesco; Montanari, Emanuele; Alvarez-Maestro, Mario; Macchione, Nicola; Hruby, Stephan; Papatsoris, Athanasios; Kallidonis, Panagiotis; Villa, Luca; Honeck, Patrick; Traxer, Olivier; Greco, Francesco.
Afiliação
  • Sanguedolce F; King's College Hospital, NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK. fsangue@hotmail.com.
  • Montanari E; Northampton General Hospital, Northampton, UK. fsangue@hotmail.com.
  • Alvarez-Maestro M; San Paolo Hospital, University of Milano, Milan, Italy.
  • Macchione N; Infanta Sofia University Hospital, Madrid, Spain.
  • Hruby S; San Paolo Hospital, University of Milano, Milan, Italy.
  • Papatsoris A; Paracelsus Medical University Salzburg, Salzburg, Austria.
  • Kallidonis P; Sismanoglio General Hospital, Athens, Greece.
  • Villa L; Patras University Hospital, Patras, Greece.
  • Honeck P; Tenon University Hospital, Paris, France.
  • Traxer O; Sindelfingen-Böblingen Clinic, Boblingen, Germany.
  • Greco F; Patras University Hospital, Patras, Greece.
World J Urol ; 34(11): 1583-1589, 2016 Nov.
Article em En | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-26993821
PURPOSE: This is a prospective multicentric comparative study evaluating the performance of XenX-a new dual-purpose device for the prevention of stone fragments migration during ureteroscopic lithotripsy (URS). METHODS: Between March 2014 and January 2015, 41 patients undertaking URS + XenX were matched with 41 patients undergoing standard URS. Patients included had unilateral ureteric stone(s) of 0.5-1.5 cm in maximum size. Demographics, complication rates and surgical outcomes were recorded for comparison. A Likert-like 5-grade scoring system was used for surgeons' evaluation of XenX properties. Cost analysis was performed by comparing weighted mean costs of the relevant procedures. RESULTS: Patients' characteristics between the two groups were comparable. Lasering time was longer for XenX group (13.59 vs. 5.17 min; p = 0.0001) whilst use of basket and need of JJ stent insertion was more frequent in control group (19.5 vs. 97.6 %; p = 0.0001 and 22 vs. 35 %; p = 0.001, respectively). Intra-operative SFR was significantly higher for XenX group (100 vs. 85.4 %; p = 0.0001), but not at 4-week follow-up, after ancillary procedures were needed in 17.1 % of the control group. Surgeons' evaluations for XenX were suboptimal for "Ease of Basketing" (2/5) and "Advancement of double J stent" (3/5). The use of XenX increased costs of procedures, but spared the costs associated to ancillary procedures and stent removals. CONCLUSIONS: XenX confirmed to be a safe and effective device especially for the treatment of upper ureteric tract stones; moreover, XenX may reduce the risk for the need of auxiliary procedures and for the insertion of a JJ stent.
Assuntos
Palavras-chave
Buscar no Google
Base de dados: MEDLINE Assunto principal: Litotripsia / Cálculos Ureterais / Stents / Ureteroscopia Tipo de estudo: Clinical_trials / Diagnostic_studies / Observational_studies / Prognostic_studies / Risk_factors_studies Limite: Female / Humans / Male / Middle aged Idioma: En Ano de publicação: 2016 Tipo de documento: Article
Buscar no Google
Base de dados: MEDLINE Assunto principal: Litotripsia / Cálculos Ureterais / Stents / Ureteroscopia Tipo de estudo: Clinical_trials / Diagnostic_studies / Observational_studies / Prognostic_studies / Risk_factors_studies Limite: Female / Humans / Male / Middle aged Idioma: En Ano de publicação: 2016 Tipo de documento: Article