Efficacy Of Various Modalities In Flexible Ureteroscopy; A Single-Centers Experience

Simple item page
dc.contributor.authorBhatti, Kamran Hassanen_US
dc.contributor.authorAhmad, Jamilen_US
dc.contributor.authorAlbudairat, Anasen_US
dc.contributor.authorAli, Hasan Mohammaden_US
dc.contributor.authorHaroon, Ahmed Tarig Mahmouden_US
dc.contributor.authorSohail, Nadeemen_US
dc.contributor.authorGomha, Faazen_US
dc.contributor.authorAbdelrahman, Khalid Mohammeden_US
dc.contributor.authorShaat, Ahmed H Aen_US
dc.contributor.authorAbodour, Amjaden_US
dc.date.accessioned2025-06-18T11:06:00Z
dc.date.available2025-06-18T11:06:00Z
dc.date.issued2025-04
dc.description.abstractObjective: To compare the ef?cacy of dusting and basketing during ?exible ureteroscopy for renal stones. Study Design: Place and Duration of the Study:Observational study Department of Urology, Hamad Medical Corporation Al Khor Qatar, from January 2017 to December 2022. Research was conducted retrospectivelyMethodology: on 1750 patients who received ?exible ureteroscopic treatment for renal stones of 2cm or less. The research divided patients into two groups: dusting, which included 950 patients and fragmentation with basketing, which had 800 patients. The research period was extended to 3 months for all participating patients. The study analyzed operating time as well as access sheath usage and lasing time and hospital stay and stone-free rate (SFR) and complication rate. The average stone dimensions between theResults: dusting group and the basketing group were 11.5±3.5 mm and 12.3±3.8 mm respectively. The essential baseline demographics of patients proved equivalent between the two comparison groups. The patients in the dusting group required less operative time compared to those in the basketing group with 45.1±10.8 minutes versus 63.5±13.8 minutes, and four patients from the dusting group and two patients from the basketing group needed intensive care unit admission because of septic shock but received successful treatment. The basketing technique yielded a statistically higher SFR rate of 78.7% following surgery compared to the dusting group with 62.7% (p=0.001). Basketing proved more effective for SFR since 86.4% of patients achieved positive results compared to 76.3% (p=0.001) in the dusting group. The success rate for the operation reached 87.8% in the dusting group but 90.2% in the basketing group throughout the 3-month follow-up period. The basketing group had a 12.4% requirement for secondary fURS sessions, while the dusting group needed it only at 9.8%. Operation time and complications decreased through theConclusion: dusting technique although laser intervention needed more time than basketing. Both methods exhibit different strengths and weaknesses because they successfully treat renal stones. The selection between the two techniques depends on the stone characteristics and patient demographics. Our initial clinical experience includes both ?exible ureteroscope models. The safety evaluation of our study demonstrates that one-time-use fURS functions as a suitable replacement for multiple-use fURS models. The stone-free success rates and complications are equivalent to those of these two devices. Extended follow-up studies with proper designs are needed to evaluate the ef?ciency of these techniques and different ?exible ureteroscope types to produce better recommendations.en_US
dc.identifier.affiliationsAssistant Professor Urology, Qatar University, Qatar, Master's in surgery Urology Section, Al-Khor Hospital P.O.Box 3050 Hamad Medical Corporation Doha, Qataren_US
dc.identifier.affiliationsClinical Fellow, Hamad Medical Corporation, Doha, Qataren_US
dc.identifier.affiliationsUrology Section, Al-Khor Hospital, P.O. Box 3050, Hamad Medical Corporation, Doha, Qataren_US
dc.identifier.affiliationsUrology Section, Al-Khor Hospital, P.O. Box 3050, Hamad Medical Corporation, Doha, Qataren_US
dc.identifier.affiliationsClinical Fellow, Hamad Medical Corporation, Doha, Qataren_US
dc.identifier.affiliationsFellow of college of Physicians and Surgeons (Pakistan) Urology Section, Alkhor Hospital P.O. Box 3050, Hamad Medical corporation, Doha, Qataren_US
dc.identifier.affiliationsConsultant Urology, Al-Khor Hospital, Hamad Medical Corporation, P.O. Box 3050, Doha, Qataren_US
dc.identifier.affiliationsArab Board in Urology (Syria), Al-Khor hospital, Hamad Medical Corporation, P.O. Box 3050, Doha, Qataren_US
dc.identifier.affiliationsUrology Section, Al-Khor Hospital, P.O. Box 3050, Hamad Medical Corporation, Doha, Qataren_US
dc.identifier.affiliationsUrology Section, Al-Khor Hospital, P.O. Box 3050, Hamad Medical Corporation, Doha, Qataren_US
dc.identifier.citationBhatti Kamran Hassan, Ahmad Jamil, Albudairat Anas, Ali Hasan Mohammad, Haroon Ahmed Tarig Mahmoud, Sohail Nadeem, Gomha Faaz, Abdelrahman Khalid Mohammed, Shaat Ahmed H A, Abodour Amjad. Efficacy Of Various Modalities In Flexible Ureteroscopy; A Single-Centers Experience. Global Journal For Research Analysis (GJRA). 2025 Apr; 14(4): 213-216en_US
dc.identifier.issn2277-8160
dc.identifier.placeIndiaen_US
dc.identifier.urihttps://imsear.searo.who.int/handle/123456789/248268
dc.languageenen_US
dc.publisherIndian Society for Health and Advanced Researchen_US
dc.relation.issuenumber4en_US
dc.relation.volume14en_US
dc.source.urihttps://www.doi.org/10.36106/gjraen_US
dc.subjectRenal calculien_US
dc.subject?exible Ureteroscopyen_US
dc.subjectlaseren_US
dc.subjectDustingen_US
dc.titleEfficacy Of Various Modalities In Flexible Ureteroscopy; A Single-Centers Experienceen_US
dc.typeJournal Articleen_US
Files
Original bundle
Now showing 1 - 1 of 1
No Thumbnail Available
Name:
gjra2025v14n4p213.pdf
Size:
470.76 KB
Format:
Adobe Portable Document Format
Download
Collections
Global Journal For Research Analysis