Use of XenX™, the latest ureteric occlusion device with guide wire utility: results from a prospective multicentric comparative study

Purpose This is a prospective multicentric comparative study evaluating the performance of XenX—a new dual-purpose device for the prevention of stone fragments migration during ureteroscopic lithotripsy (URS). Methods Between March 2014 and January 2015, 41 patients undertaking URS + XenX were match...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:World journal of urology 2016-11, Vol.34 (11), p.1583-1589
Hauptverfasser: Sanguedolce, Francesco, Montanari, Emanuele, Alvarez-Maestro, Mario, Macchione, Nicola, Hruby, Stephan, Papatsoris, Athanasios, Kallidonis, Panagiotis, Villa, Luca, Honeck, Patrick, Traxer, Olivier, Greco, Francesco
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
Beschreibung
Zusammenfassung:Purpose This is a prospective multicentric comparative study evaluating the performance of XenX—a new dual-purpose device for the prevention of stone fragments migration during ureteroscopic lithotripsy (URS). Methods Between March 2014 and January 2015, 41 patients undertaking URS + XenX were matched with 41 patients undergoing standard URS. Patients included had unilateral ureteric stone(s) of 0.5–1.5 cm in maximum size. Demographics, complication rates and surgical outcomes were recorded for comparison. A Likert-like 5-grade scoring system was used for surgeons’ evaluation of XenX properties. Cost analysis was performed by comparing weighted mean costs of the relevant procedures. Results Patients’ characteristics between the two groups were comparable. Lasering time was longer for XenX group (13.59 vs. 5.17 min; p  = 0.0001) whilst use of basket and need of JJ stent insertion was more frequent in control group (19.5 vs. 97.6 %; p  = 0.0001 and 22 vs. 35 %; p  = 0.001, respectively). Intra-operative SFR was significantly higher for XenX group (100 vs. 85.4 %; p  = 0.0001), but not at 4-week follow-up, after ancillary procedures were needed in 17.1 % of the control group. Surgeons’ evaluations for XenX were suboptimal for “Ease of Basketing” (2/5) and “Advancement of double J stent” (3/5). The use of XenX increased costs of procedures, but spared the costs associated to ancillary procedures and stent removals. Conclusions XenX confirmed to be a safe and effective device especially for the treatment of upper ureteric tract stones; moreover, XenX may reduce the risk for the need of auxiliary procedures and for the insertion of a JJ stent.
ISSN:0724-4983
1433-8726
DOI:10.1007/s00345-016-1806-6