A randomized controlled study of super fine disposable digital flexible ureteroscope versus ordinary disposable digital flexible ureteroscope in the treatment of upper urinary tract stones with diameter &lt;1.5 cm

doi:10.3877/cma.j.issn.1674-3253.2026.02.006

Abstract

Abstract:

Objective

To compare the effect of super fine disposable digital flexible ureteroscope and ordinary disposable digital flexible ureteroscope in the treatment of upper urinary tract stones with diameter <1.5 cm.

Methods

From October 2024 to January 2025, 70 patients with diameter <1.5 cm upper urinary tract calculi in our hospital were randomly divided into two groups, 35 patients in 6.3 F sheathless group were treated with 6.3 F HugeMed disposable electronic ureteroscopic laser lithotripsy. In the 7.5 F sheathed group, 35 cases were treated with 7.5 F common disposable electronic ureteroscope laser lithotripsy. The stone free rate, the success rate of the first stage operation, the operation time and the postoperative hospital stay were compared between the two groups.

Results

The operation time of 6.3 F sheathless group was shorter than that of 7.5 F sheathed group, with significant difference (P=0.011). The success rate of the first stage operation was 100% in the 6.3 F sheathless group and 91.43% in the 7.5 F sheathed group, with no significant difference (P>0.05). There were no significant differences in stone free rate, laser working time, hemoglobin decline on the first day after surgery, creatinine increase, postoperative hospitalization days and postoperative complications between the two groups (P>0.05).

Conclusion

It is safe and effective to treat upper urinary tract stones with diameter <1.5 cm by super fine disposable electronic ureteroscope.

Key words: Disposable digital flexible ureteroscope, Ureteral access sheaths, Renal pelvic pressure, Upper urinary tract stone

Tianfu Ding, Yangyang Xu, Yang Chen, Bo Xiao, Jianxing Li. A randomized controlled study of super fine disposable digital flexible ureteroscope versus ordinary disposable digital flexible ureteroscope in the treatment of upper urinary tract stones with diameter <1.5 cm[J]. Chinese Journal of Endourology(Electronic Edition), 2026, 20(02): 159-164.

/ / Recommend

Add to citation manager EndNote|Ris|BibTeX

URL: https://zhqjmnmwkzz.cma-cmc.com.cn/EN/10.3877/cma.j.issn.1674-3253.2026.02.006

https://zhqjmnmwkzz.cma-cmc.com.cn/EN/Y2026/V20/I02/159

Figures/Tables 3

References 21

[1]	Doizi S, Kamphuis G, Giusti G, et al. First clinical evaluation of a new single-use flexible ureteroscope (LithoVue™): a European prospective multicentric feasibility study[J]. World J Urol, 2017, 35(5): 809-818. DOI: 10.1007/s00345-016-1936-x.
[2]	Ofstead CL, Heymann OL, Quick MR, et al. The effectiveness of sterilization for flexible ureteroscopes: a real-world study[J]. Am J Infect Control, 2017, 45(8): 888-895. DOI: 10.1016/j.ajic.2017.03.016.
[3]	孟令超, 廖文彪, 熊云鹤, 等. 国产一次性电子输尿管软镜联合负压吸引鞘治疗单侧重复肾重复输尿管畸形合并上尿路结石的疗效分析[J]. 重庆医科大学学报, 2024, 49(6): 655-659. DOI: 10.13406/j.cnki.cyxb.003523.
[4]	Lua A, Tan LRL, Panthier F, et al. Optimal deflection techniques for flexible and navigable suction ureteral access sheaths (FANS): a comparative in vitro PEARLS analysis[J]. World J Urol, 2024, 42(1): 606. DOI: 10.1007/s00345-024-05297-3.
[5]	Chen H, Xiao J, Ge J, et al. Clinical efficacy analysis of tip-flexible suctioning ureteral access sheath combined with disposable flexible ureteroscope to treat 2-4 cm renal stones[J]. Int Urol Nephrol, 2024, 56(10): 3193-3199. DOI: 10.1007/s11255-024-04072-y.
[6]	Patel N, Akhavein A, Hinck B, et al. Tipless nitinol stone baskets: comparison of penetration force, radial dilation force, opening dynamics, and deflection[J]. Urology, 2017, 103: 256-260. DOI: 10.1016/j.urology.2017.01.010.
[7]	Tang X, Wu S, Li Z, et al. Comparison of thulium fiber laser versus holmium laser in ureteroscopic lithotripsy: a meta-analysis and systematic review[J]. BMC Urol, 2024, 24(1): 44. DOI: 10.1186/s12894-024-01419-6.
[8]	苏博兴, 肖博, 胡卫国, 等. 输尿管软镜一期上鞘失败率及相关临床因素分析[J]. 现代泌尿外科杂志, 2022, 27(11): 912-916. DOI: 10.3969/j.issn.1009‐8291.2022.11.005.
[9]	Mogilevkin Y, Sofer M, Margel D, et al. Predicting an effective ureteral access sheath insertion: a bicenter prospective study[J]. J Endourol, 2014, 28(12): 1414-1417. DOI: 10.1089/end.2014.0215.
[10]	Vanlangendonck R, Landman J. Ureteral access strategies: pro-access sheath[J]. Urol Clin North Am, 2004, 31(1): 71-81. DOI: 10.1016/S0094-0143(03)00095-8.
[11]	Traxer O, Thomas A. Prospective evaluation and classification of ureteral wall injuries resulting from insertion of a ureteral access sheath during retrograde intrarenal surgery[J]. J Urol, 2013, 189(2): 580-584. DOI: 10.1016/j.juro.2012.08.197.
[12]	Guzelburc V, Guven S, Boz MY, et al. Intraoperative evaluation of ureteral access sheath-related injuries using post-ureteroscopic lesion scale[J]. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A, 2016, 26(1): 23-26. DOI: 10.1089/lap.2015.0294.
[13]	Monga M, Bodie J, Ercole B. Is there a role for small-diameter ureteral access sheaths? Impact on irrigant flow and intrapelvic pressures[J]. Urology, 2004, 64(3): 439-441; discussion441-2. DOI: 10.1016/j.urology.2004.04.060.
[14]	Huang J, Zhao Z, AlSmadi JK, et al. Use of the ureteral access sheath during ureteroscopy: a systematic review and meta-analysis[J]. PLoS One, 2018, 13(2): e0193600. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0193600.
[15]	Panthier F, Kwok JL, Tzou DT, et al. What is the definition of stone dust and how does it compare with clinically insignificant residual fragments? A comprehensive review[J]. World J Urol, 2024, 42(1): 292. DOI: 10.1007/s00345-024-04993-4.
[16]	Traxer O, Wendt-Nordahl G, Sodha H, et al. Differences in renal stone treatment and outcomes for patients treated either with or without the support of a ureteral access sheath: the Clinical Research Office of the endourological society ureteroscopy global study[J]. World J Urol, 2015, 33(12): 2137-2144. DOI: 10.1007/s00345-015-1582-8.
[17]	Michel MS, Honeck P, Alken P. Conventional high pressure versus newly developed continuous-flow ureterorenoscope: urodynamic pressure evaluation of the renal pelvis and flow capacity[J]. J Endourol, 2008, 22(5): 1083-1085. DOI: 10.1089/end.2008.0016.
[18]	Noureldin YA, Kallidonis P, Ntasiotis P, et al. The effect of irrigation power and ureteral access sheath diameter on the maximal intra-pelvic pressure during ureteroscopy: in vivo experimental study in a live anesthetized pig[J]. J Endourol, 2019, 33(9): 725-729. DOI: 10.1089/end.2019.0317.
[19]	Cruz JACS, Danilovic A, Vicentini FC, et al. Ureteral access sheath. Does it improve the results of flexible ureteroscopy? A narrative review[J]. Int Braz J Urol, 2024, 50(3): 346-358. DOI: 10.1590/s1677-5538.ibju.2024.9907.
[20]	Samaras A, Tatanis V, Peteinaris A, et al. The evaluation of intrarenal pressure using a novel single-use flexible ureteroscope with live intrarenal pressure monitoring-an experimental study in porcine models[J]. Life, 2024, 14(9): 1060. DOI: 10.3390/life14091060.
[21]	Haas CR, Li G, Hyams ES, et al. Delayed decompression of obstructing stones with urinary tract infection is associated with increased odds of death[J]. J Urol, 2020, 204(6): 1256-1262. DOI: 10.1097/JU.0000000000001182.

组别	例数	年龄[岁，(±s)]	BMI[kg/m²，(±s)]	结石最大径[cm，(±s)]	性别[例(%)]		结石位置[例(%)]		肾积水[例(%)]			泌尿系感染[例(%)]
组别	例数	年龄[岁，(±s)]	BMI[kg/m²，(±s)]	结石最大径[cm，(±s)]	女	男	肾盂	输尿管	无	轻度	中或重度	是	否
6.3 F组	35	51.86±12.89	22.75±3.77	1.21±0.23	16(45.71)	19(54.29)	21(60.00)	14(40.00)	28(80.00)	6(17.14)	1(2.86)	5(14.29)	30(85.71)
7.5 F组	35	52.77±11.34	22.34±3.02	1.29±0.19	14(40.00)	21(60.00)	19(54.29)	16(45.71)	26(74.29)	7(20.00)	2(5.71)	6(17.14)	29(82.86)
统计值		t=0.315	t=0.503	t=1.452	χ²=0.230		χ²=0.233		Z=0.603			χ²=0.107
P值		0.754	0.612	0.151	0.629		0.629		0.547			0.742

组别	例数	年龄[岁，(±s)]	BMI[kg/m²，(±s)]	结石最大径[cm，(±s)]	性别[例(%)]		结石位置[例(%)]		肾积水[例(%)]			泌尿系感染[例(%)]
组别	例数	年龄[岁，(±s)]	BMI[kg/m²，(±s)]	结石最大径[cm，(±s)]	女	男	肾盂	输尿管	无	轻度	中或重度	是	否
6.3 F组	35	51.86±12.89	22.75±3.77	1.21±0.23	16(45.71)	19(54.29)	21(60.00)	14(40.00)	28(80.00)	6(17.14)	1(2.86)	5(14.29)	30(85.71)
7.5 F组	35	52.77±11.34	22.34±3.02	1.29±0.19	14(40.00)	21(60.00)	19(54.29)	16(45.71)	26(74.29)	7(20.00)	2(5.71)	6(17.14)	29(82.86)
统计值		t=0.315	t=0.503	t=1.452	χ²=0.230		χ²=0.233		Z=0.603			χ²=0.107
P值		0.754	0.612	0.151	0.629		0.629		0.547			0.742

组别	例数	手术时间[min，(±s)]	激光工作时间[min，(±s)]	术后住院天数[d，(±s)]	术后第一天血红蛋白下降值[g/L，(±s)]	术后第一天血肌酐升高值[μmoI/L，(±s)]	一期手术成功率例(%)]
6.3 F组	35	50.45±19.34	22.47±6.33	1.37±0.49	5.15±2.55	10.16±5.25	35 (100)
7.5 F组	35	60.52±12.47	23.53±5.66	1.57±0.61	4.85±2.37	8.35±4.64	32 (91.43)
统计值		t=2.589	t=0.741	t=1.515	t=0.515	t=1.530	χ²=1.393
P值		0.011	0.462	0.134	0.609	0.131	0.238
组别	即刻清石率[例(%)]	最终清石率[例(%)]	并发症[例(%)]		结石成分[例(%)]
组别	即刻清石率[例(%)]	最终清石率[例(%)]	无	Clavien Ⅰ	草酸钙结石	尿酸结石	感染性结石	混合
6.3 F组	30 (85.71)	34 (97.14)	32 (91.43)	3 (8.57)	25 (71.43)	2 (5.71)	5 (14.29)	3 (8.57)
7.5 F组	29 (82.86)	33 (94.29)	31 (88.57)	4 (11.43)	29 (82.86)	0 (0)	4 (11.43)	2 (5.71)
统计值	χ²=0.108	χ²=0.348	χ²=0.158		χ²=1.296
P值	0.743	0.555	0.691		0.255

组别	例数	手术时间[min，(±s)]	激光工作时间[min，(±s)]	术后住院天数[d，(±s)]	术后第一天血红蛋白下降值[g/L，(±s)]	术后第一天血肌酐升高值[μmoI/L，(±s)]	一期手术成功率例(%)]
6.3 F组	35	50.45±19.34	22.47±6.33	1.37±0.49	5.15±2.55	10.16±5.25	35 (100)
7.5 F组	35	60.52±12.47	23.53±5.66	1.57±0.61	4.85±2.37	8.35±4.64	32 (91.43)
统计值		t=2.589	t=0.741	t=1.515	t=0.515	t=1.530	χ²=1.393
P值		0.011	0.462	0.134	0.609	0.131	0.238
组别	即刻清石率[例(%)]	最终清石率[例(%)]	并发症[例(%)]		结石成分[例(%)]
组别	即刻清石率[例(%)]	最终清石率[例(%)]	无	Clavien Ⅰ	草酸钙结石	尿酸结石	感染性结石	混合
6.3 F组	30 (85.71)	34 (97.14)	32 (91.43)	3 (8.57)	25 (71.43)	2 (5.71)	5 (14.29)	3 (8.57)
7.5 F组	29 (82.86)	33 (94.29)	31 (88.57)	4 (11.43)	29 (82.86)	0 (0)	4 (11.43)	2 (5.71)
统计值	χ²=0.108	χ²=0.348	χ²=0.158		χ²=1.296
P值	0.743	0.555	0.691		0.255

Please choose a citation manager

Content to export

A randomized controlled study of super fine disposable digital flexible ureteroscope versus ordinary disposable digital flexible ureteroscope in the treatment of upper urinary tract stones with diameter <1.5 cm

RichHTML

PDF (PC)

Knowledge

Cited

Abstract

Cite this article

share this article

Figures/Tables 3

References 21

Related Articles 5

Recommended Articles

Metrics

Comments

[1]	Qizhou Mo, Jin Su, Jian Huang, Jianwei Li, Sining Li, Jianjun Liu. Application of intelligent pressure-controlled flexible ureteroscopic suctioning lithotripsy in upper urinary tract stones with diameter of 10-25 mm [J]. Chinese Journal of Endourology(Electronic Edition), 2024, 18(05): 497-502.
[2]	Zijie Mai, Xueqing Zeng, Qiansheng Zhang, Yongda Liu. A preliminary study on the treatment of severe bleeding after ureteroscopy [J]. Chinese Journal of Endourology(Electronic Edition), 2024, 18(04): 366-371.
[3]	Xiezhao Li, Guibin Xu, Yaoji Yuan, Zhiduan Cai, Rui Zhu, Siyang Liang, Haoquan Zhuang, Xun Li. Experiences in diagnosis and treatment of upper urinary tract stones with hematologic malignancies (report of 13 cases) [J]. Chinese Journal of Endourology(Electronic Edition), 2021, 15(06): 493-496.
[4]	Junjun Wen, Linjie Peng, Wen Zhong. Enhanced SMP (eSMP) technique: low renal pelvic pressure and high lithotripsy efficiency [J]. Chinese Journal of Endourology(Electronic Edition), 2021, 15(02): 108-112.
[5]	Wenfeng Zhao, Jianye Jia, Yi Zhang, Ming Xia, Yang Dong, Conghui Han, Sitong Jin, Jianbo Li, Zhigang Jia, Pengfei Liu, Changbao Xu, Yue Cheng. Current status of extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy for managing upper urinary tract calculi in pediatric patients [J]. Chinese Journal of Clinicians(Electronic Edition), 2025, 19(04): 243-247.

模态框（Modal）标题

Please choose a citation manager

Content to export

A randomized controlled study of super fine disposable digital flexible ureteroscope versus ordinary disposable digital flexible ureteroscope in the treatment of upper urinary tract stones with diameter <1.5 cm

RichHTML

PDF (PC)

Knowledge

Cited

Abstract

Cite this article

share this article

Figures/Tables 3

References 21

Related Articles 5

Recommended Articles

Metrics

Comments