Suppr超能文献

一次性使用软性输尿管镜与可重复使用软性输尿管镜的并发症:叙述性综述

Complications of Single-Use Flexible Ureteroscopy vs. Reusable Flexible Ureteroscopy: A Narrative Review.

作者信息

Punga Ana Maria, Ene Cosmin, Bulai Catalin-Andrei, Georgescu Dragos A, Multescu Razvan, Georgescu Dragos Eugen, Geavlete Bogdan, Geavlete Petrisor

机构信息

Department of Urology, Carol Davila University of Medicine and Pharmacy, Bucharest, ROU.

Department of Urology, "Sf. Ioan" Clinical Emergency Hospital, Bucharest, ROU.

出版信息

Cureus. 2024 Dec 23;16(12):e76256. doi: 10.7759/cureus.76256. eCollection 2024 Dec.

Abstract

Urolithiasis, or kidney stones, is a painful condition that is becoming increasingly common worldwide. For many, the solution lies in a minimally invasive procedure called flexible ureteroscopy (fURS). This technique involves inserting a tiny, flexible scope into the urinary tract to break up and remove stones. Reusable fURS scopes have traditionally been the norm. However, concerns about infection control and instrument durability have led to the development of single-use scopes. While both methods offer effective treatment, the question remains: which one is safer and more efficient? To answer this, we conducted a comprehensive review of the available research. We analyzed 37 studies that compared single-use and reusable fURS complication rates. While both methods carry risks, such as bleeding, infection, and ureteral injury, the overall complication rates were found to be similar. As technology continues to advance, fURS is becoming even safer and more effective. However, there is still a need for standardized reporting and further research to better understand the potential risks and benefits of both single-use and reusable scopes. Ultimately, the choice between the two will depend on various factors, including patient factors, surgeon preference, and healthcare resource availability.

摘要

尿石症,即肾结石,是一种令人疼痛的病症,在全球范围内正变得越来越普遍。对许多人来说,解决方案在于一种名为软性输尿管镜检查(fURS)的微创手术。这项技术涉及将一个微小的、可弯曲的内窥镜插入尿路以破碎并取出结石。传统上,可重复使用的fURS内窥镜一直是常态。然而,对感染控制和器械耐用性的担忧导致了一次性内窥镜的发展。虽然这两种方法都能提供有效的治疗,但问题仍然存在:哪一种更安全、更高效?为了回答这个问题,我们对现有研究进行了全面回顾。我们分析了37项比较一次性和可重复使用fURS并发症发生率的研究。虽然这两种方法都有出血、感染和输尿管损伤等风险,但总体并发症发生率相似。随着技术不断进步,fURS正变得更加安全和有效。然而,仍需要标准化报告和进一步研究,以更好地了解一次性和可重复使用内窥镜的潜在风险和益处。最终,两者之间的选择将取决于各种因素,包括患者因素、外科医生的偏好以及医疗资源的可用性。

相似文献

本文引用的文献

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