Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: https://ahro.austin.org.au/austinjspui/handle/1/26393
Full metadata record
DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributor.authorFarag, Matthew-
dc.contributor.authorTimm, Brennan-
dc.contributor.authorDavis, Niall-
dc.contributor.authorWong, Lih-Ming-
dc.contributor.authorBolton, Damien M-
dc.contributor.authorJack, Gregory S-
dc.date2020-08-06-
dc.date.accessioned2021-05-03T05:20:01Z-
dc.date.available2021-05-03T05:20:01Z-
dc.date.issued2020-09-
dc.identifier.citationJournal of Endourology 2020; 34(9): 914-918en
dc.identifier.urihttps://ahro.austin.org.au/austinjspui/handle/1/26393-
dc.description.abstractIntroduction 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.en
dc.language.isoeng
dc.subjectintrarenal pressureen
dc.subjectpyeloscopyen
dc.subjectpyelovenous-backflowen
dc.subjectretrograde intrarenal surgeryen
dc.subjectsepsisen
dc.subjectureteropyeloscopyen
dc.titlePressurized-Bag Irrigation Versus Hand-Operated Irrigation Pumps During Ureteroscopic Laser Lithotripsy: Comparison of Infectious Complications.en
dc.typeJournal Articleen
dc.identifier.journaltitleJournal of Endourologyen
dc.identifier.affiliationUrologyen
dc.identifier.affiliationDepartment of Urology, St Vincents Hospital, Melbourne, Australiaen
dc.identifier.affiliationDepartment of Urology, Tallaght Hospital, Dublin, Ireland..en
dc.identifier.doi10.1089/end.2020.0148en
dc.type.contentTexten
dc.identifier.pubmedid32475171
local.name.researcherBolton, Damien M
item.languageiso639-1en-
item.fulltextNo Fulltext-
item.grantfulltextnone-
item.openairecristypehttp://purl.org/coar/resource_type/c_18cf-
item.cerifentitytypePublications-
item.openairetypeJournal Article-
crisitem.author.deptUrology-
crisitem.author.deptUrology-
crisitem.author.deptUrology-
crisitem.author.deptUrology-
crisitem.author.deptUrology-
Appears in Collections:Journal articles
Show simple item record

Page view(s)

66
checked on Dec 24, 2024

Google ScholarTM

Check


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