Moderated Poster Abstract
Eposter Presentation
https://storage.unitedwebnetwork.com/files/1237/cd545f9ec653b44d1e9a1868822153d8.pdf
Accept format: PDF. The file size should not be more than 5MB
https://storage.unitedwebnetwork.com/files/1237/6a9f9448cdca0dbb0c23df9674b44f61.jpg
Accept format: PNG/JPG/WEBP. The file size should not be more than 2MB
 
Submitted
Abstract
Does the Ratio of Endoscope-Sheath to Suction Sheath Diameter Affect Stone Clearance in Retrograde Intrarenal Surgery? A Comparative Analysis
Moderated Poster Abstract
Clinical Research
Endourology: Urolithiasis
Author's Information
5
No more than 10 authors can be listed (as per the Good Publication Practice (GPP) Guidelines).
Please ensure the authors are listed in the right order.
Taiwan
Wei-Chun Kao wgao1994@gmail.com Chi Mei Medical Center Department of Surgery, Division of Urology Tainan Taiwan *
Ting-Yi Chiang ttim.com@gmail.com Chi Mei Medical Center Department of Surgery, Division of Urology Tainan Taiwan -
Kau-Han Lee kauhan@hotmail.com Chi Mei Medical Center Department of Surgery, Division of Urology Tainan Taiwan -
Steven K. Huang skhsteven@yahoo.com.tw Chi Mei Medical Center Department of Surgery, Division of Urology Tainan Taiwan -
Allen W. Chiu whchiu1216@gmail.com Shin Kong Wu Ho-Su Memorial Hospital Department of Urology Taipei Taiwan -
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Abstract Content
This study aimed to assess and compare the efficacy and safety of various ratio of endoscope-sheath diameter (RESD) for the suction ureteral access sheath (S-UAS) used in retrograde intrarenal surgery (RIRS) to treat renal and ureteral stones.
We conducted a single-center, retrospective cohort study of patients who underwent RIRS between March 2024 and March 2025. Participants were divided into two groups based on the RESD of the suction ureteral access sheath (S-UAS): ≤0.75 and >0.75. We recorded patient baseline characteristics, immediate and 1-month postoperative stone-free rates (SFR), operative times, complication rates, and the need for auxiliary procedures. Patients were further stratified by stone size (≤15 mm vs. >15 mm), stone location, and whether they had a single or multiple stones. Statistical analyses were conducted to compare outcomes between the two groups.
A total of 50 patients were included in the study, evenly divided into two groups based on RESD values: 25 patients in the S-UAS group with RESD ≤ 0.75, and 25 patients with RESD > 0.75. The stone-free rate (SFR) postoperatively showed no significant difference between the two groups (56.0% vs. 60.0%, p = 0.774). Operative times were comparable (110.84 ± 57.5 vs. 102.96 ± 53.9 minutes, p = 0.62). Although not statistically significant, a trend toward lower postoperative serum white blood cell (WBC) counts was observed in the RESD ≤ 0.75 group (10.12 ± 3.31 vs. 12.40 ± 5.27, p = 0.073). Subgroup analysis revealed a statistically significant lower postoperative WBC count in patients with multiple stones within the RESD ≤ 0.75 group (9.99 ± 3.45 vs. 12.79 ± 3.68, p = 0.031).
Postoperative SFR may not significantly differ between varying RESD groups when using S-UAS in RIRS. However, the use of S-UAS with RESD ≤ 0.75 is associated with lower postoperative serum WBC levels compared to RESD > 0.75. Further studies with larger cohorts and extended follow-up periods are necessary to confirm and expand upon these findings.
Urolithiasis, Ratio of endoscope-sheath diameter, Suction ureteral access sheath, Retrograde intrarenal surgery
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
1667
 
Presentation Details
Free Paper Moderated Poster(02): Endourology Urolithiasis
Aug. 14 (Thu.)
16:40 - 16:44
16