A PHP Error was encountered

Severity: Warning

Message: file_get_contents(https://...@pubfacts.com&api_key=b8daa3ad693db53b1410957c26c9a51b4908&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests

Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php

Line Number: 176

Backtrace:

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 176
Function: file_get_contents

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 250
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3122
Function: getPubMedXML

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 575
Function: pubMedSearch_Global

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 489
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword

File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 316
Function: require_once

Comparison of a novel radially dilating balloon ureteral access sheath to a conventional sheath in the porcine model. | LitMetric

AI Article Synopsis

  • - The study compared a new balloon expandable ureteral access sheath to a conventional one in pigs, focusing on insertion force, flow rate, and urothelial damage.
  • - Results showed the novel sheath required significantly less force to insert and had a higher saline flow rate, while also causing less damage to the ureteral lining.
  • - The research concludes that the new sheath is a promising alternative for ureteral access, and a clinical trial is underway to further investigate its benefits.

Article Abstract

Purpose: Traditional ureteral access sheaths rely on tapered dilators and the Dotter principle of axial force to gain access into the ureter. We compared the performance of a novel balloon expandable ureteral access sheath using radial dilatation with that of a conventional ureteral access sheath.

Materials And Methods: Ten farm pigs underwent randomized placement of the novel sheath in 1 ureter and a conventional ureteral access sheath in the contralateral ureter followed by videotaped ureteroscopy. Acute study end points included maximum and mean force of sheath insertion and removal, saline flow rate and subjective urothelial damage following sheath insertion/inflation. Additionally, blinded reviewers rated urothelial damage on digitally recorded video following sheath removal. Chronic data included gross and histological ureteral analysis at 30 days.

Results: The novel ureteral access sheath inserted with less maximum force (0.36 vs 1.48 pounds, p <0.001) and less average force (0.11 vs 0.49 pounds, p = 0.001). The flow rate during 5 minutes was higher in the new sheath (90.0 vs 80.6 cc per minute, p <0.05). Withdrawal forces were not statistically different between the sheaths. The novel sheath also had a lower subjective trauma scale rating (4.2 vs 6.1, p <0.05). Eight blinded reviewers determined that the novel ureteral access sheath resulted in less total urothelial tear length (1.3 vs 2.7 cm, p = 0.03) and less visible ureteral damage in all animals except 1 (p = 0.04).

Conclusions: The novel balloon expandable ureteral access sheath had easier insertion and a better flow rate, and caused less urothelial trauma in this porcine model. This ureteral access sheath offers a promising new option for ureteral access. A randomized clinical trial is in progress to assess the benefits of this new ureteral access sheath.

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2007.12.042DOI Listing

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

ureteral access
24
access sheath
16
sheath
9
conventional ureteral
8
maximum force
8
urothelial damage
8
ureteral
7
access
7
comparison novel
4
novel radially
4

Similar Publications

Want AI Summaries of new PubMed Abstracts delivered to your In-box?

Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!