Suppr超能文献

面临压力:输尿管软镜检查期间的冲洗操作模式

Under pressure: irrigation practice patterns during flexible ureteroscopy.

作者信息

Salka Bassel, Bahaee Jamsheed, Plott Jeff, Ghani Khurshid R

机构信息

University of Michigan Medical School, 1301 Catherine St, Ann Arbor, MI 48109, USA.

Cleveland Clinic Akron General, Akron, OH, USA.

出版信息

Ther Adv Urol. 2023 Jun 13;15:17562872231179009. doi: 10.1177/17562872231179009. eCollection 2023 Jan-Dec.

Abstract

INTRODUCTION

Irrigation parameters during flexible ureteroscopy (fURS) may impact patient outcomes, yet there are limited data on current practice patterns of irrigation methods and parameter selection. We assessed the common irrigation methods, pressure settings, and situations that present the most problems with irrigation among worldwide endourologists.

METHODS

A questionnaire on fURS practice patterns was sent to Endourology Society members in January 2021. Responses were collected through QualtricsXM over a 1-month period. The study was reported according to the Checklist for Reporting Results of Internet E-Surveys (CHERRIES). Surgeons were from North America (the United States and Canada), Latin America, Europe, Asia, Africa, and Oceania.

RESULTS

Questionnaires were answered by 208 surgeons (response rate 14%). North American surgeons accounted for 36% of respondents; 29% Europe, 18% Asia, and 14% Latin America. In North America, the most common irrigation method was the pressurized saline bag using a manual inflatable cuff (55%). Saline bag (gravity) with a bulb or syringe injection system was the most common method in Europe (45%). Automated systems were the most common method in Asia (30%). For pressures used during fURS, the majority of respondents used 75-150 mmHg. The clinical scenario which had the greatest issue with adequate irrigation was during biopsy of urothelial tumor.

CONCLUSION

There is variation in irrigation practices and parameter selection during fURS. North American surgeons primarily used a pressurized saline bag, in contrast to European surgeons who preferred a gravity bag with a bulb/syringe system. Overall, automated irrigation systems were not commonly used.

摘要

引言

软性输尿管镜检查(fURS)期间的冲洗参数可能会影响患者的治疗效果,但关于当前冲洗方法和参数选择的实践模式的数据有限。我们评估了全球范围内泌尿外科内镜医师常用的冲洗方法、压力设置以及冲洗过程中问题最多的情况。

方法

2021年1月向泌尿外科内镜学会成员发送了一份关于fURS实践模式的问卷。通过QualtricsXM在1个月的时间内收集回复。本研究按照互联网电子调查结果报告清单(CHERRIES)进行报告。外科医生来自北美(美国和加拿大)、拉丁美洲、欧洲、亚洲、非洲和大洋洲。

结果

208名外科医生回答了问卷(回复率14%)。北美外科医生占受访者的36%;欧洲占29%,亚洲占18%,拉丁美洲占14%。在北美,最常用的冲洗方法是使用手动充气袖带的加压盐水袋(55%)。带有球囊或注射器注射系统的盐水袋(重力)是欧洲最常用的方法(45%)。自动化系统是亚洲最常用的方法(30%)。对于fURS期间使用的压力,大多数受访者使用75 - 150 mmHg。冲洗充分性问题最大的临床场景是在尿路上皮肿瘤活检期间。

结论

fURS期间的冲洗实践和参数选择存在差异。北美外科医生主要使用加压盐水袋,而欧洲外科医生更喜欢带有球囊/注射器系统的重力袋。总体而言,自动化冲洗系统使用并不普遍。

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/b90e/10285609/41b38b8b7d5f/10.1177_17562872231179009-fig1.jpg

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验