Literature DB >> 16286103

Location and etiology of flexible and semirigid ureteroscope damage.

Jeffrey C Sung1, W Patrick Springhart, Charles G Marguet, James O L'Esperance, Yeh H Tan, David M Albala, Glenn M Preminger.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: To perform an analysis of currently available manufacturer data regarding the character of ureteroscope damage. The high costs associated with the repair of flexible and semirigid ureteroscopes are well documented. Increased knowledge of the etiology of ureteroscope damage should aid urologists in prolonging the lives of these delicate instruments.
METHODS: We requested data from the four major ureteroscope manufacturers (ACMI, Olympus America, Karl Storz, and Richard Wolf) on the types, speculated causes, costs, and frequency of ureteroscope damage. The results were tabulated in a blinded fashion and analyzed for trends. We then formulated guidelines that could be applied by practicing urologists.
RESULTS: For both flexible and semirigid ureteroscopes, the frequency of repair increased with decreasing ureteroscope diameter and increasing instrument length. The cost of the repair was generally greater for flexible ureteroscopes (mean 4597 dollars) than for semirigid ureteroscopes (mean 2437 dollars). The major causes of flexible ureteroscope damage were working channel damage from laser burn or instrument passage and extreme scope deflection with an indwelling instrument. The primary reasons for semirigid ureteroscope repair included overtorquing and improper handling in the operating room and during sterile processing.
CONCLUSIONS: Urologists can minimize the repair costs of flexible and semirigid ureteroscopes by taking precautions to eliminate laser fiber-induced damage and by avoiding overdeflection. Improved storage and handling of these instruments is also necessary. Although small-diameter ureteroscopes are favorable because of their increased mobility and ease of passage, physician and staff awareness of their increased fragility is vital in maximizing the longevity of these commonly used instruments.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2005        PMID: 16286103     DOI: 10.1016/j.urology.2005.05.033

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


  17 in total

1.  Comparison of ureteroscopic pneumatic lithotripsy and extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy for the management of proximal ureteral stones: A single center experience.

Authors:  Nadeem Iqbal; Yashfeen Malik; Utbah Nadeem; Maham Khalid; Amna Pirzada; Mehr Majeed; Hajra Arshad Malik; Saeed Akhter
Journal:  Turk J Urol       Date:  2018-05-01

2.  Comparative medico-economic study of reusable vs. single-use flexible ureteroscopes.

Authors:  Khalid Al-Balushi; Nathalie Martin; Hélène Loubon; Michael Baboudjian; Floriane Michel; Pierre-Clément Sichez; Thomas Martin; Eugénie Di-Crocco; Sarah Gaillet; Veronique Delaporte; Akram Akiki; Alice Faure; Gilles Karsenty; Eric Lechevallier; Romain Boissier
Journal:  Int Urol Nephrol       Date:  2019-07-17       Impact factor: 2.370

Review 3.  Single-use flexible ureteropyeloscopy: a systematic review.

Authors:  N F Davis; M R Quinlan; C Browne; N R Bhatt; R P Manecksha; F T D'Arcy; N Lawrentschuk; D M Bolton
Journal:  World J Urol       Date:  2017-11-24       Impact factor: 4.226

Review 4.  Intracorporeal lithotripsy.

Authors:  Peter Alken
Journal:  Urolithiasis       Date:  2017-12-04       Impact factor: 3.436

Review 5.  Handling and protecting your flexible ureteroscope: how to maximise scope usage.

Authors:  Khaled Hosny; Jennifer Clark; Shalom J Srirangam
Journal:  Transl Androl Urol       Date:  2019-09

6.  Comparison of vacuum suction ureteroscopic laser lithotripsy and traditional ureteroscopic laser lithotripsy for impacted upper ureteral stones.

Authors:  Zhong-Hua Wu; Yong-Zhi Wang; Tong-Zu Liu; Xing-Huan Wang; Ci Zhang; Wei-Bing Zhang; Hang Zheng; Yin-Gao Zhang
Journal:  World J Urol       Date:  2022-07-18       Impact factor: 3.661

7.  First clinical evaluation of a new single-use flexible ureteroscope (LithoVue™): a European prospective multicentric feasibility study.

Authors:  Steeve Doizi; Guido Kamphuis; Guido Giusti; Kim Hovgaard Andreassen; Thomas Knoll; Palle Jörn Osther; Cesare Scoffone; Daniel Pérez-Fentes; Silvia Proietti; Oliver Wiseman; Jean de la Rosette; Olivier Traxer
Journal:  World J Urol       Date:  2016-09-26       Impact factor: 4.226

Review 8.  Economic Considerations in the Management of Nephrolithiasis.

Authors:  Daniel Roberson; Colin Sperling; Ankur Shah; Justin Ziemba
Journal:  Curr Urol Rep       Date:  2020-03-31       Impact factor: 3.092

Review 9.  Technical aspects of lasers in urology.

Authors:  Heinrich-O Teichmann; Thomas R Herrmann; Thorsten Bach
Journal:  World J Urol       Date:  2007-05-30       Impact factor: 3.661

10.  The lumbosacral angle is a significant predictor for using a semi-rigid ureteroscopic approach in middle ureteral stones.

Authors:  Hideto Ueki; Takaaki Inoue; Masaichiro Fujita; Fukashi Yamamichi; Masato Fujisawa
Journal:  Transl Androl Urol       Date:  2022-04
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.