E M McDougall1, G Alberts, K J Deal, J M Nagy. 1. Department of Urology, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tennessee 37232-2765, USA. elspeth.mcdougall@mcmail.vanderbilt.edu
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: The fragility of the <9F flexible ureteroscope limits its availability to general urology practice. The purpose of this study was to determine whether the technique used to clean the flexible ureteroscope or the number of persons handling the instrument during the cleaning process influenced endoscope breakage or deterioration during regular endourologic use. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A new Olympus URF/P3 flexible 7.5F ureteroscope was used for each of two 30-day study periods during which a single surgeon used the endoscope for a variety of upper urinary tract procedures. During the first 30-day period (Group 1), the endoscope was leak-proof-pressure tested and cleaned by the endourology support team using the Steris 20 (peroxyacetic acid 35%) technique. During the second 30-day period (Group 2), the endoscope was leak-proof tested and cleaned only by the surgeon using the Cidex (glutaraldehyde 2.4%) technique. A record was kept for each ureteroscopic case to document the patient position, access technique, time the endoscope was in the urinary tract, instruments passed through the ureteroscope, and the maximum irrigant pressure used. In addition, a record was made of the number of broken fibers, the degree of flexion and deflexion of the endoscope, and the problems encountered with the endoscope during the case. RESULTS: The two study groups were similar in terms of the total number of cases performed, the mean time the endoscope was in the urinary tract per case, the access approach used, and the use of the ureteral access sheath and ancillary equipment. In Group 2, the endoscope was used for a longer total time (618 minutes v 457 minutes), and access to a lower pole calix was more than twice as common as in Group 1. This may explain why more broken fibers were noted in the instrument used in Group 2 over the study period (eight v four broken fibers) than in Group 1. The only breakage occurred as a result of the surgeon accidentally activating the laser probe inside the working channel of the endoscope in Group 2. CONCLUSION: The technique and number of personnel involved in the maintenance and cleaning of the flexible ureteroscope does not have a significant effect on the durability and function of these instruments. It is the arduous demands of the endourologic procedure that influence the durability of these fragile endoscopes.
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: The fragility of the <9F flexible ureteroscope limits its availability to general urology practice. The purpose of this study was to determine whether the technique used to clean the flexible ureteroscope or the number of persons handling the instrument during the cleaning process influenced endoscope breakage or deterioration during regular endourologic use. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A new Olympus URF/P3 flexible 7.5F ureteroscope was used for each of two 30-day study periods during which a single surgeon used the endoscope for a variety of upper urinary tract procedures. During the first 30-day period (Group 1), the endoscope was leak-proof-pressure tested and cleaned by the endourology support team using the Steris 20 (peroxyacetic acid 35%) technique. During the second 30-day period (Group 2), the endoscope was leak-proof tested and cleaned only by the surgeon using the Cidex (glutaraldehyde 2.4%) technique. A record was kept for each ureteroscopic case to document the patient position, access technique, time the endoscope was in the urinary tract, instruments passed through the ureteroscope, and the maximum irrigant pressure used. In addition, a record was made of the number of broken fibers, the degree of flexion and deflexion of the endoscope, and the problems encountered with the endoscope during the case. RESULTS: The two study groups were similar in terms of the total number of cases performed, the mean time the endoscope was in the urinary tract per case, the access approach used, and the use of the ureteral access sheath and ancillary equipment. In Group 2, the endoscope was used for a longer total time (618 minutes v 457 minutes), and access to a lower pole calix was more than twice as common as in Group 1. This may explain why more broken fibers were noted in the instrument used in Group 2 over the study period (eight v four broken fibers) than in Group 1. The only breakage occurred as a result of the surgeon accidentally activating the laser probe inside the working channel of the endoscope in Group 2. CONCLUSION: The technique and number of personnel involved in the maintenance and cleaning of the flexible ureteroscope does not have a significant effect on the durability and function of these instruments. It is the arduous demands of the endourologic procedure that influence the durability of these fragile endoscopes.
Authors: Dylan Isaacson; Tessnim Ahmad; Ian Metzler; David T Tzou; Kazumi Taguchi; Manint Usawachintachit; Samuel Zetumer; Benjamin Sherer; Marshall Stoller; Thomas Chi Journal: J Endourol Date: 2017-09-20 Impact factor: 2.942
Authors: T R W Herrmann; T Bach; F Imkamp; H Tezval; C Klot; U Jonas; A J Gross; M Burchardt Journal: World J Urol Date: 2007-06-05 Impact factor: 3.661
Authors: Giovanni S Marchini; Fábio C Torricelli; Carlos A Batagello; Manoj Monga; Fábio C Vicentini; Alexandre Danilovic; Miguel Srougi; William C Nahas; Eduardo Mazzucchi Journal: Int Braz J Urol Date: 2019 Jul-Aug Impact factor: 1.541
Authors: Dinah K Rindorf; Thomas Tailly; Guido M Kamphuis; Sara Larsen; Bhaskar K Somani; Olivier Traxer; Kevin Koo Journal: Eur Urol Open Sci Date: 2022-01-29