Literature DB >> 16426134

Comparison of resolution, contrast, and color differentiation among fiberoptic and digital flexible cystoscopes.

James F Borin1, Corollos S Abdelshehid, Ralph V Clayman.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND AND
PURPOSE: Advances in electro-optics continue to improve the urologist's ability to perform minimally invasive procedures. While the development of flexible fiberoptic cystoscopes more than 20 years ago greatly impacted the practice of urology, distal-sensor digital technology may represent the next step in the evolution of endoscopy. We compared a new distal-sensor digital flexible cystoscope with two standard fiberoptic flexible cystoscopes.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: We evaluated the resolution, contrast, and color discrimination of a new ACMIICN distal-sensor digital cystoscope with >165,000 effective pixels in its clear aperture (viewing area), a new ACMI-ACN II fiberoptic cystoscope with <15,000 pixels in its clear aperture, and a Storz 1127 office fiberoptic cystoscope. Five subjects compared each cystoscope across 13 test parameters.
RESULTS: There was no difference in the performance of the two fiberoptic cystoscopes. The ICN cystoscope was statistically superior to one or both fiberoptic cystoscopes across 12 of the 13 tests, including color differentiation between shades of dark red (P < 0.05), contrast discrimination along a 15-step grayscale gradient (P < 0.001 compared with the 1127 fiberoptic cystoscope only), resolution at 10 mm (7.52 line pairs/mm [lp/mm] (ICN) nu 3.58 lp/mm for both fiberoptic cystoscopes; (P < 0.001), and clear resolution of a 1-mm target at a distance of 6.1 cm (ICN) nu 3.3 cm (1127) and 3.8 cm (ACN II) (P < 0.001).
CONCLUSIONS: The ICM distal-sensor all-digital cystoscope was clearly superior to two representative fiberoptic cystoscopes in vitro in terms of resolution, contrast discrimination, and red color differentiation. In-vivo performance remains to be assessed.

Mesh:

Year:  2006        PMID: 16426134     DOI: 10.1089/end.2006.20.54

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Endourol        ISSN: 0892-7790            Impact factor:   2.942


  5 in total

Review 1.  Where next for the endoscope?

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

2.  Second-look nephroscopy after percutaneous nephrolithotomy.

Authors:  Bodo E Knudsen
Journal:  Ther Adv Urol       Date:  2009-04

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.  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

Review 5.  [Enhanced imaging in urological endoscopy].

Authors:  M C Kriegmair; S Hein; D S Schoeb; H Zappe; R Suárez-Ibarrola; F Waldbillig; B Gruene; P-F Pohlmann; F Praus; K Wilhelm; C Gratzke; A Miernik; C Bolenz
Journal:  Urologe A       Date:  2020-12-10       Impact factor: 0.639

  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.