Literature DB >> 17941773

Rapid communication: effects of Steris 1 sterilization and Cidex ortho-phthalaldehyde high-level disinfection on durability of new-generation flexible ureteroscopes.

Jose Benito A Abraham1, Corollos S Abdelshehid, Hak J Lee, Geoffrey N Box, Leslie A Deane, Todd Le, Forrest Jellison, James F Borin, Anthony Manipon, Elspeth M McDougall, Ralph V Clayman.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND AND
PURPOSE: The effects of commonly used reprocessing methods on flexible ureteroscope longevity have never been examined. We prospectively studied the effects of Steris 1 sterilization and Cidex ortho-phthalaldehyde (OPA) high-level disinfection (HLD) on the image quality, physical structure, and deflective properties of two new flexible ureteroscopes.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Two identical "out-of-the-box" Storz 11278AU1 flexible ureteroscopes (Karl Storz Endoscopy, Tuttlingen, Germany) were sterilized individually using the Steris 1 system (Steris Mentor, Ohio) or disinfected with Cidex OPA (Advanced Sterilization Products, J&J, Irvine, CA) for 100 trials followed by a crossover to the other method for another 100 trials over a period of 1 year. After every five trials, optical quality, angle of deflection, and fiber damage were analyzed in the laboratory. Throughout the study, neither of these ureteroscopes was used clinically.
RESULTS: After 100 trials, ureteroscope 1, which was sterilized initially in the Steris system, had a 12-mm tear on its shaft (noted after the 17th trial), 297 damaged fibers, and a 37% drop in resolution (loss of 3.75 lines/mm). There was no change in deflection from baseline. In contrast, after 100 cycles, ureteroscope 2, which was subjected to HLD with Cidex OPA, had no visible external damage, a 0% change in resolution, 10 damaged fibers, and no change in deflection. After the crossover, ureteroscope 2 developed a semilunar defect that obscured the endoscopic view, whereas there was no further significant damage to ureteroscope 1.
CONCLUSION: After 100 cycles, the Steris 1 system rendered the flexible ureteroscope unusable, whereas HLD with Cidex OPA had minimal adverse impact.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2007        PMID: 17941773     DOI: 10.1089/end.2007.0181

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


  11 in total

1.  Use of flexible endoscopes for NOTES: sterilization or high-level disinfection?

Authors:  Georg O Spaun; Trudie A Goers; Richard A Pierce; Maria A Cassera; Sandy Scovil; Lee L Swanstrom
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2009-12-24       Impact factor: 4.584

Review 2.  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

3.  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

4.  Prospective comparative study between the effect of CIDEX® OPA and STERRAD NX on the durability of digital flexible ureteroscope.

Authors:  Saeed H Al Qahtani; Mohamed H Abdelhamied; Abdulrahman H AlMuhrij; Mizyad Y Al Rawashada; Ahmed M Al Askar; Amr M Abdelhamid; Tarek K Fath El-Bab; Ehab M Galal; Mahmoud S Eladawy
Journal:  World J Urol       Date:  2019-05-13       Impact factor: 4.226

5.  WiScope® single use digital flexible ureteroscope versus reusable flexible ureteroscope for management of renal stones: a prospective randomized study.

Authors:  Ahmed I Ali; Amr Eldakhakhny; Abdelsalam Abdelfadel; Mahmoud F Rohiem; Mohamed Elbadry; Ali Hassan
Journal:  World J Urol       Date:  2022-07-27       Impact factor: 3.661

6.  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

7.  Comparison of New Single-Use Digital Flexible Ureteroscope Versus Nondisposable Fiber Optic and Digital Ureteroscope in a Cadaveric Model.

Authors:  Silvia Proietti; Laurian Dragos; Wilson Molina; Steeve Doizi; Guido Giusti; Olivier Traxer
Journal:  J Endourol       Date:  2016-05-02       Impact factor: 2.942

8.  LithoVue™: A new single-use digital flexible ureteroscope.

Authors:  Salvatore Butticè; Tarik Emre Sener; Christopher Netsch; Esteban Emiliani; Rosa Pappalardo; Carlo Magno
Journal:  Cent European J Urol       Date:  2016-08-26

Review 9.  A comprehensive literature-based equation to compare cost-effectiveness of a flexible ureteroscopy program with single-use versus reusable devices.

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

Review 10.  Repair Rate and Associated Costs of Reusable Flexible Ureteroscopes: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

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
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.