Literature DB >> 16753388

Durability of flexible ureteroscopes: a randomized, prospective study.

Manoj Monga1, Sara Best, Ramakrishna Venkatesh, Caroline Ames, Courtney Lee, Michael Kuskowski, Steven Schwartz, Richard Vanlangendock, Jason Skenazy, Jaime Landman.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: We performed a randomized, prospective, multi-institutional study evaluating the durability of commercially available flexible ureteroscopes.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 192 patients were randomized to the use of 7 less than 9Fr flexible ureteroscopes, including the Storz 11274AA and Flex-X, the ACMI DUR-8 and DUR-8 Elite, Wolf models 7330.170 and 7325.172, and the Olympus URF-P3. Information about total and lower pole use time, the number and method of ureteroscope insertion, and they type and duration of accessory instrumentation was recorded. Surgeons were asked to rate the visibility and maneuverability of the instrument on a scale of 0-poor to 10-excellent.
RESULTS: The indication for ureteroscopy was upper tract calculi in 87% of cases. Of ureteroscope insertions 97% were performed through an access sheath. The average of number of cases before repair ranged from 3.25 for the Wolf 7325 to 14.4 for the ACMI DUR-8 Elite. Average ureteroscope operative time was statistically longer for the DUR-8 Elite (494 minutes) than for the Flex-X (p = 0.047), and the Wolf 7325 and 7330 (p = 0.001 and 0.001, respectively). Duration of use before repair for the URF-P3 (373 minutes) was statistically longer than for the Wolf 7325 and 7330 (p = 0.016 and 0.017, respectively). Minutes of use with an instrument in the working channel were significantly more with the DUR-8 Elite and the URF-P3 than the Wolf 7330 (p = 0.017 and 0.008) and 7325 (p = 0.012 and 0.005, respectively). The ureteroscope that experienced the greatest average duration of lower pole use was the URF-P3, while the shortest was the Wolf 7325 (103 vs 20 minutes, p = 0.005). Average minutes of laser use before breakage was significantly longer for the DUR-8 Elite than for the Wolf 7325 (110 vs 21 minutes, p = 0.021) and 7330 (24 minutes, p = 0.025).
CONCLUSIONS: Currently available less than 9Fr flexible ureteroscopes remain fragile instruments. The DUR-8 Elite and Olympus URF-P3 proved to be the most durable devices.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2006        PMID: 16753388     DOI: 10.1016/S0022-5347(06)00575-1

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Urol        ISSN: 0022-5347            Impact factor:   7.450


  31 in total

Review 1.  [Controversy on lower pole stones: monitor or intervene?].

Authors:  A Häcker; M S Michel
Journal:  Urologe A       Date:  2012-03       Impact factor: 0.639

2.  Single session vs two sessions of flexible ureterosopy (FURS) for dusting of renal pelvic stones 2-3 cm in diameter: Does stone size or hardness play a role in number of sessions to be applied?"

Authors:  Ahmed Mamdouh Abd El Hamed; Hazem Elmoghazy; Mohamed Aldahshoury; Ahmed Riad; Mohammed Mostafa; Fawzy Farag; Wael Gamal
Journal:  Turk J Urol       Date:  2017-05-03

Review 3.  [Lower pole calyceal stones].

Authors:  U Nagele; T Knoll; D Schilling; M S Michel; A Stenzl
Journal:  Urologe A       Date:  2008-07       Impact factor: 0.639

4.  Efficacy of percutaneous nephrostomy during flexible ureteroscopy for renal stone management.

Authors:  Se Yun Kwon; Bum Soo Kim; Hyun Tae Kim; Yoon Kyu Park
Journal:  Korean J Urol       Date:  2013-10-15

5.  Flow matters: irrigation flow differs in flexible ureteroscopes of the newest generation.

Authors:  Stephan Kruck; Aristoteles G Anastasiadis; Georgios Gakis; Ute Walcher; Joerg Hennenlotter; Axel S Merseburger; Arnulf Stenzl; Udo Nagele
Journal:  Urol Res       Date:  2011-03-26

Review 6.  Which flexible ureteroscope is the best for upper tract urothelial carcinoma treatment?

Authors:  Etienne Xavier Keller; Steeve Doizi; Luca Villa; Olivier Traxer
Journal:  World J Urol       Date:  2019-02-15       Impact factor: 4.226

7.  Clinical outcomes and costs of reusable and single-use flexible ureterorenoscopes: a prospective cohort study.

Authors:  R Mager; M Kurosch; T Höfner; S Frees; A Haferkamp; A Neisius
Journal:  Urolithiasis       Date:  2018-01-22       Impact factor: 3.436

8.  RIRS versus mPCNL for single renal stone of 2-3 cm: clinical outcome and cost-effective analysis in Chinese medical setting.

Authors:  Jiahua Pan; Qi Chen; Wei Xue; Yonghui Chen; Lei Xia; Haige Chen; Yiran Huang
Journal:  Urolithiasis       Date:  2012-12-23       Impact factor: 3.436

9.  Update on ureteroscopy instrumentation.

Authors:  Renato N Pedro; Manoj Monga
Journal:  Indian J Urol       Date:  2010-07

10.  [Minimally invasive percutaneous nephrolitholapaxy (MIP)].

Authors:  U Nagele; D Schilling; A G Anastasiadis; U Walcher; K D Sievert; A S Merseburger; M Kuczyk; A Stenzl
Journal:  Urologe A       Date:  2008-09       Impact factor: 0.639

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.