Literature DB >> 19854494

Durability of the next-generation flexible fiberoptic ureteroscopes: a randomized prospective multi-institutional clinical trial.

Bodo Knudsen1, Ricardo Miyaoka, Ketul Shah, Timothy Holden, Thomas M T Turk, Renato N Pedro, Carly Kriedberg, Bryan Hinck, Omar Ortiz-Alvarado, Manoj Monga.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the durability of 4 next-generation flexible ureteroscopes in a randomized, multi-institutional, prospective study.
METHODS: Patients at 3 institutions were randomized to 1 of 4 flexible ureteroscopes: the Wolf Viper, Olympus URF-P5, Gyrus-ACMI DUR-8 Elite (DUR-8E), and Stryker FlexVision U-500. Each center used 1 scope from each manufacturer until it needed major repair (primary endpoint). Intraoperative data included total time of use, number of scope insertions through an access sheath, working time in the lower pole, number of insertions and total time for accessory instrumentation in the working channel, number of laser insertions through the working channel, and total laser energy used.
RESULTS: A total of 175 patients were randomized. The DUR-8E experienced early catastrophic failure (< or = 10 cases) at all 3 sites; however, this also occurred at 1 site each for the Stryker and Wolf scopes. The DUR-8E required major repair after the fewest average number of cases (5.3), the lowest average total time of usage (108 minutes), the fewest insertions through an access sheath (20.3), the shortest duration of laser firing (31.3 minutes), and the shortest instrument in the working channel time (224.7 minutes). As such, due to variation in durability within manufacturers, no differences could be demonstrated. Visibility ratings for the Wolf iper were significantly better than the DUR-8E (P = .034) and the Flexvision (P = .038).
CONCLUSIONS: The Wolf Viper, Olympus URF-P5, and Stryker Flexvision U-500 flexible ureteroscopes seem comparable with regard to durability. However, larger prospective registry-based studies are needed to document significant differences between them. 2010 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2009        PMID: 19854494     DOI: 10.1016/j.urology.2009.06.093

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


  18 in total

1.  Instrumentation in endourology.

Authors:  Rakesh Khanna; Manoj Monga
Journal:  Ther Adv Urol       Date:  2011-06

2.  Use of flexible ureteroscopy in the clinical practice for the treatment of renal stones: results from a large European survey conducted by the EAU Young Academic Urologists-Working Party on Endourology and Urolithiasis.

Authors:  F Sanguedolce; E Liatsikos; P Verze; S Hruby; A Breda; J D Beatty; T Knoll
Journal:  Urolithiasis       Date:  2014-03-28       Impact factor: 3.436

3.  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

Review 4.  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

Review 5.  Reusable flexible ureterorenoscopes are more cost-effective than single-use scopes: results of a systematic review from PETRA Uro-group.

Authors:  Michele Talso; Ioannis K Goumas; Guido M Kamphuis; Laurian Dragos; Tzevat Tefik; Olivier Traxer; Bhaskar K Somani
Journal:  Transl Androl Urol       Date:  2019-09

6.  A Prospective Case-Control Study Comparing LithoVue, a Single-Use, Flexible Disposable Ureteroscope, with Flexible, Reusable Fiber-Optic Ureteroscopes.

Authors:  Manint Usawachintachit; Dylan S Isaacson; Kazumi Taguchi; David T Tzou; Ryan S Hsi; Benjamin A Sherer; Marshall L Stoller; Thomas Chi
Journal:  J Endourol       Date:  2017-03-13       Impact factor: 2.942

7.  Identifying factors associated with need for flexible ureteroscope repair: a Western Endourology STone (WEST) research consortium prospective cohort study.

Authors:  Kazumi Taguchi; Jonathan D Harper; Marshall L Stoller; Brian D Duty; Mathew D Sorensen; Roger L Sur; Manint Usawachintachit; David T Tzou; David L Wenzler; Dylan Isaacson; Angela Xu; Carissa Chu; Uwais B Zaid; Eric R Taylor; Krishna Ramaswamy; Thomas Chi
Journal:  Urolithiasis       Date:  2017-12-09       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.  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

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.