Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: https://ahro.austin.org.au/austinjspui/handle/1/26393
Title: Pressurized-Bag Irrigation Versus Hand-Operated Irrigation Pumps During Ureteroscopic Laser Lithotripsy: Comparison of Infectious Complications.
Austin Authors: Farag, Matthew ;Timm, Brennan ;Davis, Niall;Wong, Lih-Ming ;Bolton, Damien M ;Jack, Gregory S 
Affiliation: Urology
Department of Urology, St Vincents Hospital, Melbourne, Australia
Department of Urology, Tallaght Hospital, Dublin, Ireland..
Issue Date: Sep-2020
Date: 2020-08-06
Publication information: Journal of Endourology 2020; 34(9): 914-918
Abstract: Introduction and Objectives: A variety of irrigation systems are available during ureteroscopy. We sought to compare gravity-driven pressure bags with hand-operated irrigation pumps in terms of postoperative complications after ureteroscopy with lithotripsy. Methods: A retrospective analysis of 234 patients undergoing flexible ureteropyeloscopy with laser lithotripsy by 24 supervised trainees over 4 years at a single teaching institution. Patients were divided into those who had procedures performed by using gravity-driven pressure bags fixed at 60 to 204 cm H2O, vs those who had procedures performed by using a hand-operated irrigation pump capable of delivering 1 to 10 mL per flush. Variables including surgical duration, hypotension, fever, sepsis, and hematuria were extracted from the charts, along with the surgical techniques utilized. Statistical analyses included chi-squared tests and Student's t-tests. Results: There were no differences in gender, age, indication, or stone size in the two groups. Postoperative systemic inflammatory response syndrome was significantly greater in the hand-assisted n = 11/144 (7.6%) compared with the fixed irrigation group n = 1/90 (1.1%); p = 0.032. Emergency room presentations were greater in the hand irrigation group, n = 46/144 (32%) vs n = 12/90 (13%) in the pressure-bag irrigation, p = 0.002. Postoperative fever was also greater in the hand pump irrigation cohort compared with the continuous pressure cohort (13/144 [9%] vs 1/90 [1%], p = 0.011). No statistical difference was found between the two groups with respect to stone clearance and subsequent procedures required (p = 0.123). Conclusions: This analysis suggests that using continuous flow irrigation at a fixed maximum pressure of 150 mmHg (204 cm H2O) or less may result in decreased pain, infection, and sepsis compared with handheld pressure irrigation.
URI: https://ahro.austin.org.au/austinjspui/handle/1/26393
DOI: 10.1089/end.2020.0148
Journal: Journal of Endourology
PubMed URL: 32475171
Type: Journal Article
Subjects: intrarenal pressure
pyeloscopy
pyelovenous-backflow
retrograde intrarenal surgery
sepsis
ureteropyeloscopy
Appears in Collections:Journal articles

Show full item record

Page view(s)

38
checked on Oct 2, 2024

Google ScholarTM

Check


Items in AHRO are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.