Department of Urology, Loma Linda University Health System, Loma Linda, California.
J Endourol. 2020 May;34(5):629-636. doi: 10.1089/end.2020.0058. Epub 2020 Apr 13.
To determine the optimal guidewire for bypassing an impacted ureteral stone. Three different benchtop models of varying impaction (300, 362, and 444 mm Hg pressure) were used to compare the ability of 13 different guidewires to bypass an impacted ureteral stone. In the first and second models, we recorded the maximum force required to bypass the stone. In the first model (300 mm Hg) 10 new wires for each of the 13 types were advanced past a ureteral stone using a series 5 digital force gauge. In the second model (362 mm Hg), the top 5 performing guidewires were similarly tested. In the third model (444 mm Hg), 5 attending urologists and 5 urology residents (blinded to wire type) compared the 13 guidewires and rated the wire performance using a Likert scale. Statistical analysis was performed with analysis of variance and the chi-square test. In the first model, there was a significant difference between wires ( < 0.001) with the lowest mean force to bypass a stone seen in the Glidewire (0.117 ± 0.02 lbs) and HiWire (0.130 ± 0.01 lbs). Of the five wires tested in the second model, the Glidewire (0.24 ± 0.09 lbs) and UltraTrack (0.40 ± 0.35 lbs) both required less force than the other three wires ( = 0.018). In the third model, only two wires (Roadrunner and Glidewire) bypassed the impacted stone in 100% of trials. When comparing standard, hybrid, and hydrophilic wires, the hydrophilic had the highest success rate (standard = 0%, hybrid = 36.67%, and hydrophilic = 70.67%; = 0.000) and Likert score (standard = 1.03, hybrid = 2.38, and hydrophilic = 3.24; = 0.000). Hydrophilic wires required the least time to bypass the stone (hybrid = 82.81 seconds hydrophilic = 45.37 seconds, = 0.000). In this benchtop study, standard wires performed poorly and hybrid wires were not as effective as hydrophilic wires. The Glidewire required the least force, the shortest insertion time, and had the highest surgeon satisfaction rating.
为了确定用于绕过嵌顿输尿管结石的最佳导丝。使用三种不同的、嵌顿程度不同的台式模型(300、362 和 444mmHg 压力),比较了 13 种不同导丝绕过嵌顿输尿管结石的能力。在第一个和第二个模型中,我们记录了绕过结石所需的最大力。在第一个模型(300mmHg)中,使用系列 5 数字力计将 10 根新的每种类型的导丝推进到输尿管结石后面。在第二个模型(362mmHg)中,同样测试了前 5 种性能最好的导丝。在第三个模型(444mmHg)中,5 名主治泌尿科医生和 5 名泌尿科住院医师(对导丝类型不知情)比较了 13 种导丝,并使用李克特量表对导丝性能进行评分。使用方差分析和卡方检验进行统计分析。在第一个模型中,导丝之间存在显著差异( < 0.001),通过结石的最低平均力在 Glidewire(0.117±0.02 磅)和 HiWire(0.130±0.01 磅)中看到。在第二个模型中测试的 5 根导丝中,Glidewire(0.24±0.09 磅)和 UltraTrack(0.40±0.35 磅)的力均小于其他三根导丝( = 0.018)。在第三个模型中,只有两根导丝(Roadrunner 和 Glidewire)在 100%的试验中成功绕过嵌顿结石。在比较标准、混合和亲水导丝时,亲水导丝的成功率最高(标准 = 0%,混合 = 36.67%,亲水 = 70.67%; = 0.000)和李克特评分(标准 = 1.03,混合 = 2.38,亲水 = 3.24; = 0.000)。亲水导丝绕过结石所需的时间最短(混合 = 82.81 秒,亲水 = 45.37 秒; = 0.000)。在这项台式研究中,标准导丝表现不佳,而混合导丝不如亲水导丝有效。Glidewire 需要的力最小,插入时间最短,并且得到了最高的手术医生满意度评分。