Bhatti, Kamran HassanAhmad, JamilAlbudairat, AnasAli, Hasan MohammadHaroon, Ahmed Tarig MahmoudSohail, NadeemGomha, FaazAbdelrahman, Khalid MohammedShaat, Ahmed H AAbodour, Amjad2025-06-182025-06-182025-04Bhatti 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): 213-2162277-8160https://imsear.searo.who.int/handle/123456789/248268Objective: 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.Renal calculi?exible UreteroscopylaserDustingJournal ArticleIndiaAssistant Professor Urology, Qatar University, Qatar, Master's in surgery Urology Section, Al-Khor Hospital P.O.Box 3050 Hamad Medical Corporation Doha, QatarClinical Fellow, Hamad Medical Corporation, Doha, QatarUrology Section, Al-Khor Hospital, P.O. Box 3050, Hamad Medical Corporation, Doha, QatarUrology Section, Al-Khor Hospital, P.O. Box 3050, Hamad Medical Corporation, Doha, QatarClinical Fellow, Hamad Medical Corporation, Doha, QatarFellow of college of Physicians and Surgeons (Pakistan) Urology Section, Alkhor Hospital P.O. Box 3050, Hamad Medical corporation, Doha, QatarConsultant Urology, Al-Khor Hospital, Hamad Medical Corporation, P.O. Box 3050, Doha, QatarArab Board in Urology (Syria), Al-Khor hospital, Hamad Medical Corporation, P.O. Box 3050, Doha, QatarUrology Section, Al-Khor Hospital, P.O. Box 3050, Hamad Medical Corporation, Doha, QatarUrology Section, Al-Khor Hospital, P.O. Box 3050, Hamad Medical Corporation, Doha, Qatar