Is a safety guidewire needed for retrograde ureteroscopy?

Detalhes bibliográficos
Autor(a) principal: Molina Junior,Wilson Rica
Data de Publicação: 2017
Outros Autores: Pessoa,Rodrigo R., Silva,Rodrigo Donalísio da, Gustafson,Diedra, Nogueira,Leticia, Meller,Alex
Tipo de documento: Artigo
Idioma: eng
Título da fonte: Revista da Associação Médica Brasileira (Online)
Texto Completo: http://old.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0104-42302017000800717
Resumo: Summary Introduction: It is generally advised to have a safety guidewire (SGW) present during ureteroscopy (URS) to manage possible complications. However, it increases the strenght needed to insert and retract the endoscope during the procedure, and, currently, there is a lack of solid data supporting the need for SGW in all procedures. We reviewed the literature about SGW utilization during URS. Method: A review of the literature was conducted through April 2017 using PubMed, Ovid, and The Cochrane Library databases to identify relevant studies. The primary outcome was to report stone-free rates, feasibility, contraindications to and complications of performing intrarenal retrograde flexible and semi-rigid URS without the use of a SGW. Results: Six studies were identified and selected for this review, and overall they included 1,886 patients where either semi-rigid or flexible URS was performed without the use of a SGW for the treatment of urinary calculi disease. Only one study reported stone-free rates with or without SGW at 77.1 and 85.9%, respectively (p=0.001). None of the studies showed increased rates of complications in the absence of SGW and one of them showed more post-endoscopic ureteral stenosis whenever SGW was routinely used. All studies recommended utilization of SGW in complicated cases, such as ureteral stones associated with significant edema, ureteral stricture, abnormal anatomy or difficult visualization. Conclusion: Our review showed a lack of relevant data supporting the use of SGW during retrograde URS. A well-designed prospective randomized trial is in order.
id AMB-1_9b413e7b12743886cc99f0f7ec83589e
oai_identifier_str oai:scielo:S0104-42302017000800717
network_acronym_str AMB-1
network_name_str Revista da Associação Médica Brasileira (Online)
repository_id_str
spelling Is a safety guidewire needed for retrograde ureteroscopy?safety guidewireureteroscopyretrograde intrarenal surgerymeta-analysiskidney stoneureteral calculiSummary Introduction: It is generally advised to have a safety guidewire (SGW) present during ureteroscopy (URS) to manage possible complications. However, it increases the strenght needed to insert and retract the endoscope during the procedure, and, currently, there is a lack of solid data supporting the need for SGW in all procedures. We reviewed the literature about SGW utilization during URS. Method: A review of the literature was conducted through April 2017 using PubMed, Ovid, and The Cochrane Library databases to identify relevant studies. The primary outcome was to report stone-free rates, feasibility, contraindications to and complications of performing intrarenal retrograde flexible and semi-rigid URS without the use of a SGW. Results: Six studies were identified and selected for this review, and overall they included 1,886 patients where either semi-rigid or flexible URS was performed without the use of a SGW for the treatment of urinary calculi disease. Only one study reported stone-free rates with or without SGW at 77.1 and 85.9%, respectively (p=0.001). None of the studies showed increased rates of complications in the absence of SGW and one of them showed more post-endoscopic ureteral stenosis whenever SGW was routinely used. All studies recommended utilization of SGW in complicated cases, such as ureteral stones associated with significant edema, ureteral stricture, abnormal anatomy or difficult visualization. Conclusion: Our review showed a lack of relevant data supporting the use of SGW during retrograde URS. A well-designed prospective randomized trial is in order.Associação Médica Brasileira2017-08-01info:eu-repo/semantics/articleinfo:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersiontext/htmlhttp://old.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0104-42302017000800717Revista da Associação Médica Brasileira v.63 n.8 2017reponame:Revista da Associação Médica Brasileira (Online)instname:Associação Médica Brasileira (AMB)instacron:AMB10.1590/1806-9282.63.08.717info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccessMolina Junior,Wilson RicaPessoa,Rodrigo R.Silva,Rodrigo Donalísio daGustafson,DiedraNogueira,LeticiaMeller,Alexeng2017-09-27T00:00:00Zoai:scielo:S0104-42302017000800717Revistahttps://ramb.amb.org.br/ultimas-edicoes/#https://old.scielo.br/oai/scielo-oai.php||ramb@amb.org.br1806-92820104-4230opendoar:2017-09-27T00:00Revista da Associação Médica Brasileira (Online) - Associação Médica Brasileira (AMB)false
dc.title.none.fl_str_mv Is a safety guidewire needed for retrograde ureteroscopy?
title Is a safety guidewire needed for retrograde ureteroscopy?
spellingShingle Is a safety guidewire needed for retrograde ureteroscopy?
Molina Junior,Wilson Rica
safety guidewire
ureteroscopy
retrograde intrarenal surgery
meta-analysis
kidney stone
ureteral calculi
title_short Is a safety guidewire needed for retrograde ureteroscopy?
title_full Is a safety guidewire needed for retrograde ureteroscopy?
title_fullStr Is a safety guidewire needed for retrograde ureteroscopy?
title_full_unstemmed Is a safety guidewire needed for retrograde ureteroscopy?
title_sort Is a safety guidewire needed for retrograde ureteroscopy?
author Molina Junior,Wilson Rica
author_facet Molina Junior,Wilson Rica
Pessoa,Rodrigo R.
Silva,Rodrigo Donalísio da
Gustafson,Diedra
Nogueira,Leticia
Meller,Alex
author_role author
author2 Pessoa,Rodrigo R.
Silva,Rodrigo Donalísio da
Gustafson,Diedra
Nogueira,Leticia
Meller,Alex
author2_role author
author
author
author
author
dc.contributor.author.fl_str_mv Molina Junior,Wilson Rica
Pessoa,Rodrigo R.
Silva,Rodrigo Donalísio da
Gustafson,Diedra
Nogueira,Leticia
Meller,Alex
dc.subject.por.fl_str_mv safety guidewire
ureteroscopy
retrograde intrarenal surgery
meta-analysis
kidney stone
ureteral calculi
topic safety guidewire
ureteroscopy
retrograde intrarenal surgery
meta-analysis
kidney stone
ureteral calculi
description Summary Introduction: It is generally advised to have a safety guidewire (SGW) present during ureteroscopy (URS) to manage possible complications. However, it increases the strenght needed to insert and retract the endoscope during the procedure, and, currently, there is a lack of solid data supporting the need for SGW in all procedures. We reviewed the literature about SGW utilization during URS. Method: A review of the literature was conducted through April 2017 using PubMed, Ovid, and The Cochrane Library databases to identify relevant studies. The primary outcome was to report stone-free rates, feasibility, contraindications to and complications of performing intrarenal retrograde flexible and semi-rigid URS without the use of a SGW. Results: Six studies were identified and selected for this review, and overall they included 1,886 patients where either semi-rigid or flexible URS was performed without the use of a SGW for the treatment of urinary calculi disease. Only one study reported stone-free rates with or without SGW at 77.1 and 85.9%, respectively (p=0.001). None of the studies showed increased rates of complications in the absence of SGW and one of them showed more post-endoscopic ureteral stenosis whenever SGW was routinely used. All studies recommended utilization of SGW in complicated cases, such as ureteral stones associated with significant edema, ureteral stricture, abnormal anatomy or difficult visualization. Conclusion: Our review showed a lack of relevant data supporting the use of SGW during retrograde URS. A well-designed prospective randomized trial is in order.
publishDate 2017
dc.date.none.fl_str_mv 2017-08-01
dc.type.driver.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/article
dc.type.status.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion
format article
status_str publishedVersion
dc.identifier.uri.fl_str_mv http://old.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0104-42302017000800717
url http://old.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0104-42302017000800717
dc.language.iso.fl_str_mv eng
language eng
dc.relation.none.fl_str_mv 10.1590/1806-9282.63.08.717
dc.rights.driver.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess
eu_rights_str_mv openAccess
dc.format.none.fl_str_mv text/html
dc.publisher.none.fl_str_mv Associação Médica Brasileira
publisher.none.fl_str_mv Associação Médica Brasileira
dc.source.none.fl_str_mv Revista da Associação Médica Brasileira v.63 n.8 2017
reponame:Revista da Associação Médica Brasileira (Online)
instname:Associação Médica Brasileira (AMB)
instacron:AMB
instname_str Associação Médica Brasileira (AMB)
instacron_str AMB
institution AMB
reponame_str Revista da Associação Médica Brasileira (Online)
collection Revista da Associação Médica Brasileira (Online)
repository.name.fl_str_mv Revista da Associação Médica Brasileira (Online) - Associação Médica Brasileira (AMB)
repository.mail.fl_str_mv ||ramb@amb.org.br
_version_ 1754212832940916736