7.5F Mini Flexible Ureteroscope in Retrograde Intrarenal Surgery: Initial Results from a Multicenter Randomized...

Objective: To report the initial results of an randomized clinical trail comparing the safety and efficacy between 7.5F and 9.2F flexible ureteroscope (FUS) in the management of renal calculi <2 cm. Materials and Methods: Eighty patients were enrolled and received retrograde intrarenal surgery (RIRS) with a different size FUS. The operation results and complications were compared. Results: Two cases in the 7.5F group and four cases in the 9.2F group failed to insert the 12/14F ureteral access sheath (UAS), respectively, and no significant difference (p = 0.396) was noted. However, 10/12F UAS was inserted in the 7.5F group, but not available in the 9.2F group, and thus, the 10/12F UAS inserting rate in the 7.5F group was higher than in the 9.2F group (100% vs 0%, p = 0.014), and the UAS insertion failure rate in 9.2F group was higher than in the 7.5F group (10% vs 0%, p = 0.040). The operation time in 7.5F group was shorter than the 9.2F group (35.60 ± 7.86 vs 41.05 ± 8.14, p = 0.003). Less irrigation was required in 7.5F group (813.93 ± 279.47 mL vs 1504.18 ± 385.31 mL, p = 0.000). The postoperative fever rate in 9.2F group was higher than 7.5F group (20% vs 5%, p = 0.043). There was no significant difference in sepsis (0% vs 2.5%, p = 0.314) between the two groups. No significant difference was noted in hospital stay (0.93 ± 0.49 days vs 1.14 ± 0.64 days, p = 0.099) between the two groups. The final stone-free rate (SFR) in 7.5F group was higher than 9.2F group (95% vs 80%, p = 0.043). Conclusion: The latest 7.5F mini FUS was a reliable instrument in RIRS to keep a good visualization with low requirement of irrigation, low postoperative infection complication, and also a high SFR when compared with the conventional 9.2F FUS. Clinical Trial Registration: NCT05231577.