You have accessJournal of UrologyStone Disease: New Technology II1 Apr 2014PD37-02 THE USE OF A REVERSE THERMOSENSITIVE POLYMER FOR URETEROSCOPY WITH LASER LITHOTRIPSY IN AN IN-VIVO PORCINE MODEL: ARE THERE ADVANTAGES BEYOND PREVENTION OF STONE RETROPULSION? Jonathan Mobley, Goutham Vemana, Marshall Strother, R. Sherburne Figenshau, Jeff Larson, and Brian Benway Jonathan MobleyJonathan Mobley More articles by this author , Goutham VemanaGoutham Vemana More articles by this author , Marshall StrotherMarshall Strother More articles by this author , R. Sherburne FigenshauR. Sherburne Figenshau More articles by this author , Jeff LarsonJeff Larson More articles by this author , and Brian BenwayBrian Benway More articles by this author View All Author Informationhttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2014.02.2020AboutPDF ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload CitationsTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints ShareFacebookTwitterLinked InEmail INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES To evaluate the effects of a reverse thermosensitive polymer (RTP) during ureteroscopy with laser lithotripsy (URSL) in an in-vivo porcine model. METHODS Six pigs underwent general anesthesia followed by bilateral URSL of stone phantoms while measuring intrapelvic renal pressures through bilateral nephrostomy tubes. The procedures were performed in one ureter with the RTP and in the contralateral, control ureter without the RTP. Stone migration lengths, operative times, laser times, laser energy usage, intrapelvic pressures, and post-necropsy histological examinations of the ureters were compared between the two groups. RESULTS Bilateral URSL was successfully performed in 5/6 pigs. In one pig, only the unilateral control was performed, because the ureter was too narrow to complete the contralateral side. The mean laser time was 12.8 minutes shorter with the use of the RTP group than in the controls (p=0.021). The procedure time, laser energy usage, and retropulsion length was shorter in the RTP group, but did not reach significance. Between the two groups, there was no difference in mean renal pelvic pressures, peak renal pelvic pressures, or post-procedure histological examinations of the ureters. CONCLUSIONS The use of a RTP during URSL may have greater advantages beyond preventing stone retropulsion. Here, the use of a RTP during URSL resulted in a significant decrease in laser times. Further clinical investigations could further delineate the advantages of using a RTP during URSL. Table 1. Effects of RTP on Ureteroscopy with Laser Lithotripsy Procedures Control RTP p value Procedure Time (min) 29.0 ± 3.86 24.8 ± 3.15 0.421 Laser Time (min) 28.0 ± 3.84 15.2 ± 2.18 0.021 RTP Time (min) N/A 9.6 ± 2.25 N/A Laser Energy (KJ) 2.95 ± 0.35 2.20 ± 0.28 0.134 Retropulsion Length (cm) 4.17 ± 1.25 1.8 ± 0.66 0.136 Baseline RP Pressure (mmHg) 15.4 ± 2.45 13.2 ± 1.58 0.474 Average RP Pressure (mmHg) 21.0 ± 2.33 18.0 ± 2.58 0.410 Peak RP Pressure (mmHg) 41.2 ± 4.33 35.0 ± 5.91 0.425 Abbreviations: RTP, reverse themosensitive polymer; KJ, Kilojoule; RP, renal pelvic, N/A, Not applicable © 2014FiguresReferencesRelatedDetails Volume 191Issue 4SApril 2014Page: e946 Advertisement Copyright & Permissions© 2014MetricsAuthor Information Jonathan Mobley More articles by this author Goutham Vemana More articles by this author Marshall Strother More articles by this author R. Sherburne Figenshau More articles by this author Jeff Larson More articles by this author Brian Benway More articles by this author Expand All Advertisement Advertisement PDF downloadLoading ...
Read full abstract