Literature DB >> 19501889

Prospective comparison of flexible fiberoptic and digital cystoscopes.

Zhamshid Okhunov1, Gregory W Hruby, Gabriella Mirabile, Franzo Marruffo, Daniel S Lehman, Mitchell C Benson, Mantu Gupta, Jaime Landman.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: To compare the optics, performance, and durability of digital (DC) and fiberoptic (FC) cystoscopes.
METHODS: In an office setting, we randomly assigned staff urologists to 1 of the 4 cystoscopes, the Gyrus-ACMI ICN-0564 (AD), Gyrus-ACMI ACN-2 (AF), Olympus CYF-V2 EndoEYE Cysto-Nephro Videoscope (OD), Olympus CYF-5 Cysto-Fiberscope (OF), to perform diagnostic or surveillance cystoscopy and stent removal. The documented metrics included a subjective surgeon assessment of cystoscope optics and function characteristics on a 10-point scale (1, poor to 10, excellent). The measurement of the upward and downward cystoscope deflection and damage and repairs were all documented.
RESULTS: A total of 1022 cases were performed. The DC and FC were used 690 and 332 times, respectively. Two repairs (0.2%) were documented (1 AF and 1 AD); both resulted directly from incorrect cystoscope handling/cleaning. The mean operative time per case for the DC and FC was 4.5 and 4.6 minutes, respectively (P = .66). The mean surgeon optical ranking for the DC and FC was 8.4 and 7.8, respectively (P = .0076). The mean surgeon deflection ranking for the DC and FC was 8.6 and 8.0, respectively (P = .0001). The mean surgeon retroflex deflection ranking for the DC and FC was 8.4 and 7.8, respectively (P = .001). The mean overall cystoscope score surgeon ranking for the DC and FC was 8.6 and 7.9, respectively (P = .0001).
CONCLUSIONS: In the office setting, with proper care, FCs and DCs are durable for office applications. Overall, surgeons significantly preferred the DCs as demonstrated by discrepancies in both use and differences in the subjective metrics.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2009        PMID: 19501889     DOI: 10.1016/j.urology.2009.01.007

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


  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.  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

3.  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

4.  The Antineoplastic Activity of Photothermal Ablative Therapy with Targeted Gold Nanorods in an Orthotopic Urinary Bladder Cancer Model.

Authors:  Xiaoping Yang; Lih-Jen Su; Francisco G La Rosa; Elizabeth Erin Smith; Isabel R Schlaepfer; Suehyun K Cho; Brian Kavanagh; Wounjhang Park; Thomas W Flaig
Journal:  Bladder Cancer       Date:  2017-07-27

Review 5.  Explainable artificial intelligence (XAI): closing the gap between image analysis and navigation in complex invasive diagnostic procedures.

Authors:  S O'Sullivan; M Janssen; Andreas Holzinger; Nathalie Nevejans; O Eminaga; C P Meyer; Arkadiusz Miernik
Journal:  World J Urol       Date:  2022-01-27       Impact factor: 3.661

  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.