0 items found

999: Head to head comparison of flexible ureterorenoscopy (fURS) versus robot-assisted flexible URS (rfURS) using the Avicenna Roboflex URS robot

Speaker
J-T. Klein, Ulm (DE)
Authors
Klein J-T. 1 , Charalampogianis N. 2 , Fiedler M. 2 , Kabakci S. 3 , Tokatli Z. 4 , Rassweiler J. 2
Institutions
1University Hospital, Dept. of Urology and Pediatric Urology, Ulm, Germany, 2SLK-Kliniken GmbH, Dept. of Urology , Heilbronn, Germany, 3University Ankara, Dept. of Bioengineering, Ankara, Turkey, 4Medicana International Ankara, Dept. of Urology, Ankara, Turkey, 5
Event
33rd Annual EAU Congress Copenhagen
Date – time - Location
19 March 2018, 14:00 - 15:30, Green Area, Room 1 (Level 0)
Session
Poster Session 73 - Safe access through natural orifice: It is the era of ureteroscopy
Topic
Stones: Ureteroscopy

Introduction & Objectives

The Avicenna Roboflex URS-Robot used for retrograde intra-renal stone surgery in clinical routine made the “robolution” come true in Endourology. Safety and feasibility of the system was shown. This study investigates the non-inferiority of the system compared to classical fURS in a head to head design.

Materials & Methods

To compare fURS with rfURS we prospectively analyzed two groups of each 100 patients undergoing retrograde intra-renal stone surgery. Group 1 was treated with conventional fURS and Group 2 was treated using the robotic system. According to the head to head design two groups showed comparable parameters according demographic and stone parameters: fURS: gender m/f 1/2; BMI 28,1; ASA 2,7; rfURS: gender f/m 1,5/3; BMI 27,5; fURS: stone load/kidney: 2729 mm3 (10; 35000), number of stones/kidney 1,88 (1; 10); rfURS: stone load/kidney: 2957 mm3 (27; 27000), number of stones/kidney: 1,97 (1; 9). 3 surgeons experienced in both techniques performed all cases using the digital scope Storz Flex Xc. The majority of patients were pre-stented (fURS: 94%; rfURS: 98%) and treated with an access sheath (fURS: 84%; rfURS: 100%) using laser lithotripsy (fURS: 96%; rfURS: 96%).

Results

Apart from the higher stone-clearance rate (34,9 mm3/min vs.44,8 mm3/min ) and radiation exposure (274 (23,7; 1598) vs. 206 (19,5; 815) cGy*cm2) favoring rfURS there were no significantly different results in both groups: fURS: OR-time 78min (18; 218), intra-op complications: 2% bleeding; stone free rate (SFR): 93%, post-op complications: 8% fever (7%), hematoma (1%); rfURS: OR-time: 90 min (18;263), docking time 5 min(1; 24), console time: 66 min (5; 200); console time to stone contact :6min (0,5; 25); intra-op complications: 2% bleeding 1%, ureteral perforation 1%, SFR: 94%, post-op complications: 5% sepsis (1%), fever (2%), sub-capsular hematoma(1%), myocardial infarction (1%).

Conclusions

In terms of safety and outcome both surgical techniques showed similar results. There is no superiority of one procedure. The slightly longer OR-time in the rfURS group is due to the docking and preparation process of the robot. In terms of surgical outcome the rfURS System is not inferior to fURS, but offers a faster stone clearance rate and lower radiation exposure, which can be beneficial especially in the treatment of larger and complex stones.