PD35-07 PRELIMINARY RESULTS OF A PROSPECTIVE RANDOMIZED TRIAL OF SAFETY GUIDEWIRE USE IN URETEROSCOPIC STONE SURGERY: TO USE OR NOT TO USE

Abstract

You have accessJournal of UrologyStone Disease: Surgical Therapy IV1 Apr 2017PD35-07 PRELIMINARY RESULTS OF A PROSPECTIVE RANDOMIZED TRIAL OF SAFETY GUIDEWIRE USE IN URETEROSCOPIC STONE SURGERY: TO USE OR NOT TO USE Yiloren Tanidir, Bahadir Sahin, Tarik Emre Sener, Muhammed Sulukaya, Cagri Akin Sekerci, Ilker Tinay, and Ferruh Simsek Yiloren TanidirYiloren Tanidir More articles by this author , Bahadir SahinBahadir Sahin More articles by this author , Tarik Emre SenerTarik Emre Sener More articles by this author , Muhammed SulukayaMuhammed Sulukaya More articles by this author , Cagri Akin SekerciCagri Akin Sekerci More articles by this author , Ilker TinayIlker Tinay More articles by this author , and Ferruh SimsekFerruh Simsek More articles by this author View All Author Informationhttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2017.02.1543AboutPDF ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload CitationsTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints ShareFacebookTwitterLinked InEmail INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES Up-to-date, urology guidelines introduce safety guidewire (SGW) as an integral tool in ureteroscopy and recommended its routine use. However, the necessity of SGW placement in endourological procedures lack evidence and is being suggested as an expert opinion. Present study aimed to evaluate the use of SGW placement and its necessity in treatment of ureteral stones with semi-rigid ureteroscopy (s-URS). METHODS A total of 160 patients with ureteral stones were stratified according to ureteral stone location and prospectively randomized into two groups' according to SGW usage or not in s-URS between July 2014 and August 2016. Ureteroscopy and litotripsy were done with a semi-rigid ureteroscope of 6.4/7.8 Fr (Olympus) and laser. Chi-square and student t-test were used for comparing data. RESULTS Of all patients, in 79 interventions were done under the guidance of SGW (SGW group) and in 81 without the guidance of SGW (No- SGW group). In No-SGW group 10 patients needed SGW introduction as it was difficult to access or advance the ureteroscope into the ureteral orifice or throughout the ureter and in SGW group SGW could not be introduced in 8 patients. These patients were excluded from the study. There were no significant differences in patient demographics and findings between the two groups, except female/male patient ratio and mean BMI which was higher in the SGW group (Table 1-2). Among all patients only 1 patient (1.3%) in SGW group experienced a complication of Clavien 3 and/or higher, which was ureteral perforation. CONCLUSIONS The preliminary results of our study reveal that, routine use of SGW placement does not help to decrease complication and/or treatment failure rates. Safety guidewire concept has to be re-evaluated with further prospective randomized trials. © 2017FiguresReferencesRelatedDetails Volume 197Issue 4SApril 2017Page: e665 Advertisement Copyright & Permissions© 2017MetricsAuthor Information Yiloren Tanidir More articles by this author Bahadir Sahin More articles by this author Tarik Emre Sener More articles by this author Muhammed Sulukaya More articles by this author Cagri Akin Sekerci More articles by this author Ilker Tinay More articles by this author Ferruh Simsek More articles by this author Expand All Advertisement Advertisement PDF downloadLoading ...