| Title |
Increasing the size of ureteral access sheath during retrograde intrarenal surgery improves surgical efficiency without increasing complications
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
World Journal of Urology, January 2018
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s00345-018-2204-z |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Chad R. Tracy, George M. Ghareeb, Charles J. Paul, Nathan A. Brooks |
| Abstract |
To directly compare intraoperative and post-operative outcomes and complications between three groups undergoing ureteroscopy: no ureteral access sheath, 12/14 Fr and larger 14/16 Fr ureteral access sheaths (UAS). We retrospectively reviewed demographic, pre-operative, intraoperative, and post-operative data of 257 patients who underwent ureteroscopy for nephrolithiasis by a single surgeon from January 2013 through July 2015. Patients were separated into three groups: no UAS, a 12/14 Fr UAS, or 14/16 Fr UAS. Outcomes included differences in stone-free rate, post-procedure-related events (PRE), ureteral injury rate (measured by early post-operative hydronephrosis), and post-operative complications. A UAS was used in 65.4% (168/257) patients, with 73.8% (124/168) utilizing a 12/14 Fr UAS and 26.2% (44/168) utilizing a 14/16 Fr UAS. Those patients in whom a 14/16 Fr UAS was employed had greater stone burden compared to the 12/14 Fr UAS group (180.8 ± 18.0 vs. 104 ± 9.1 mm2, p < 0.001). When comparing 12/14 Fr and 14/16 Fr ureteral access sheaths, there was no significant difference in ureteral injury rate, complications (10.5 vs. 11.4%, respectively; p = 0.87), or overall stone-free rate (78.1 vs. 81.3%, p = 0.70). The mean amount of stone burden treated per minute of operative time was more than 30% higher in the 14/16 Fr UAS group compared to 12/14 Fr UAS group (2.11 vs. 1.62 mm2/min; p = 0.01). The use of a 14/16 Fr UAS allows for similar stone-free rate and improved operative efficiency with no increased risk of ureteral injury or post-operative complications when compared to the 12/14 Fr UAS. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 2 | 40% |
| Germany | 1 | 20% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | 20% |
| Unknown | 1 | 20% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 3 | 60% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 20% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 20% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 20 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 20 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Other | 3 | 15% |
| Researcher | 3 | 15% |
| Student > Master | 2 | 10% |
| Student > Bachelor | 2 | 10% |
| Professor > Associate Professor | 1 | 5% |
| Other | 1 | 5% |
| Unknown | 8 | 40% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 8 | 40% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 1 | 5% |
| Unknown | 11 | 55% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 28 March 2021.
All research outputs
#7,033,701
of 23,023,224 outputs
Outputs from World Journal of Urology
#795
of 2,117 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#144,165
of 440,722 outputs
Outputs of similar age from World Journal of Urology
#32
of 69 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,023,224 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 68th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,117 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.1. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 61% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 440,722 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 66% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 69 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 52% of its contemporaries.