Literature DB >> 16140063

Comparison of optical resolution with digital and standard fiberoptic cystoscopes in an in vitro model.

Sejal S Quayle1, Caroline D Ames, David Lieber, Yan Yan, Jaime Landman.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: To compare two different distal sensor flexible endoscopes with standard fiberoptic cystoscopes for optical resolution. Distal video sensor flexible endoscopy may represent the cusp of a new endoscopic revolution.
METHODS: Twenty-three participants evaluated the optical resolution capabilities of six flexible cystoscopes. The two presently available distal sensor flexible cystoscopes, ACMI DCN-2010 digital flexible cystoscope and Olympus CYF-V EndoEYE flexible video cystoscope, were compared with the four leading fiberoptic cystoscopes, ACMI ACN-2 fiberoptic cystoscope, Olympus CYF-4 Cystofiberscope, Karl Storz 11272CU1 Flexible Cystoscope, and Richard Wolf Flexible Fibre Urethro-Cystoscope, in an in vitro model. The participants recorded the numerical digits they were able to visualize through five solutions with progressively increasing concentrations of hematoxylin dye (C1 to C5). The cystoscopic images were viewed on a 13-in. medical grade Olympus monitor with an Olympus Visera camera system.
RESULTS: No differences were detected among the cystoscopes at the lowest concentrations of hematoxylin dye (C1 and C2). At C3 to C5, the mean percentage of visualized numbers for the ACMI and Olympus distal sensor flexible cystoscopes was significantly greater than for all fiberoptic cystoscopes (P <0.01). At the highest concentration (C5), the ACMI distal sensor cystoscope performed significantly better than did the Olympus distal sensor flexible cystoscopes (P <0.01), although at all other concentrations, the two digital video cystoscopes performed equivalently.
CONCLUSIONS: The results of this in vitro study suggest that cystoscopes with distal sensor technology improve visibility in a simulated challenging working environment compared with fiberoptic cystoscopes.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2005        PMID: 16140063     DOI: 10.1016/j.urology.2005.04.009

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Urology        ISSN: 0090-4295            Impact factor:   2.649


  7 in total

Review 1.  Chemoprevention of bladder cancer.

Authors:  Dragan J Golijanin; David Kakiashvili; Ralph R Madeb; Edward M Messing; Seth P Lerner
Journal:  World J Urol       Date:  2006-11       Impact factor: 4.226

Review 2.  Where next for the endoscope?

Authors:  Ricardo A Natalin; Jaime Landman
Journal:  Nat Rev Urol       Date:  2009-11       Impact factor: 14.432

Review 3.  Ureteroscopy and stones: Current status and future expectations.

Authors:  Anna E Wright; Nicholas J Rukin; Bhaskar K Somani
Journal:  World J Nephrol       Date:  2014-11-06

4.  Single-use versus reusable ureterorenoscopes for retrograde intrarenal surgery (RIRS): systematic comparative analysis of physical and optical properties in three different devices.

Authors:  Susanne Deininger; Luis Haberstock; Stephan Kruck; Eva Neumann; Ines Anselmo da Costa; Tilman Todenhöfer; Jens Bedke; Arnulf Stenzl; Steffen Rausch
Journal:  World J Urol       Date:  2018-06-05       Impact factor: 4.226

5.  In vitro and in vivo comparison of optics and performance of a distal sensor ureteroscope versus a standard fiberoptic ureteroscope.

Authors:  Achim Lusch; Corollos Abdelshehid; Guy Hidas; Kathryn E Osann; Zhamshid Okhunov; Elspeth McDougall; Jaime Landman
Journal:  J Endourol       Date:  2013-06-18       Impact factor: 2.942

6.  The new grasper-integrated single use flexible cystoscope for double J stent removal: evaluation of image quality, flow and flexibility.

Authors:  M Talso; E Emiliani; M Baghdadi; A Orosa; P Servian; A Barreiro; S Proietti; O Traxer
Journal:  World J Urol       Date:  2016-12-16       Impact factor: 4.226

7.  Application of new technology in bladder cancer diagnosis and treatment.

Authors:  Alvin C Goh; Seth P Lerner
Journal:  World J Urol       Date:  2009-02-22       Impact factor: 4.226

  7 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.