Literature DB >> 23465156

Improving the durability of digital flexible ureteroscopes.

Theocharis Karaolides1, Christian Bach, Stefanos Kachrilas, Anuj Goyal, Junaid Masood, Noor Buchholz.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To present the damage to digital flexible ureteroscopes after 1 year of use in a tertiary stone center and our strategy to reduce the damage.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Data regarding all procedures performed with 3 new digital flexible ureteroscopes (Olympus URF-V) were collected. We examined the conditions under which the damage occurred and retrieved the manufacturer's repair reports. Two study groups were created. Group 1 included all the procedures performed before the introduction of a set of guidelines for safe use of the digital flexible ureteroscopes and a stepwise credentialing process for new surgeons. Group 2 included all the procedures performed thereafter.
RESULTS: A total of 141 procedures were performed in 122 patients. Five events of damage occurred in the first study group and were related to working in maximum deflection. In the second group only 3 events occurred. The damage affected the angulation system, working channel, or body shaft. No damage occurred to the imaging system of any ureteroscope. The changes that were made after the first 5 months of use resulted in a significant prolongation of the number of uses before damage occurred for every ureteroscope (10.6 vs 21.6 uses before damage, P = .035).
CONCLUSION: The optical system of the new digital ureteroscopes is very durable; however, the overall longevity depends on the correct handling of their use. By following the proposed guidelines for safe use and with monitored training of new users, these instruments can have a significantly longer lifespan.
Copyright © 2013 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2013        PMID: 23465156     DOI: 10.1016/j.urology.2013.01.016

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


  21 in total

1.  Comparative medico-economic study of reusable vs. single-use flexible ureteroscopes.

Authors:  Khalid Al-Balushi; Nathalie Martin; Hélène Loubon; Michael Baboudjian; Floriane Michel; Pierre-Clément Sichez; Thomas Martin; Eugénie Di-Crocco; Sarah Gaillet; Veronique Delaporte; Akram Akiki; Alice Faure; Gilles Karsenty; Eric Lechevallier; Romain Boissier
Journal:  Int Urol Nephrol       Date:  2019-07-17       Impact factor: 2.370

Review 2.  Cost comparison of single-use versus reusable flexible ureteroscope: A systematic review.

Authors:  Eugenio Ventimiglia; Alvaro Jiménez Godínez; Olivier Traxer; Bhaskar K Somani
Journal:  Turk J Urol       Date:  2020-08-25

3.  A prospective randomized comparison among SWL, PCNL and RIRS for lower calyceal stones less than 2 cm: a multicenter experience : A better understanding on the treatment options for lower pole stones.

Authors:  G Bozzini; P Verze; D Arcaniolo; O Dal Piaz; N M Buffi; G Guazzoni; M Provenzano; B Osmolorskij; F Sanguedolce; E Montanari; N Macchione; K Pummer; V Mirone; M De Sio; G Taverna
Journal:  World J Urol       Date:  2017-09-05       Impact factor: 4.226

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.  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

7.  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

8.  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

Review 9.  Pushing the boundaries of ureteroscopy: current status and future perspectives.

Authors:  Petrisor Geavlete; Razvan Multescu; Bogdan Geavlete
Journal:  Nat Rev Urol       Date:  2014-06-03       Impact factor: 14.432

10.  The cost analysis of flexible ureteroscopic lithotripsy in 302 cases.

Authors:  Cenk Gurbuz; Gokhan Atış; Ozgur Arikan; Ozgur Efilioglu; Asıf Yıldırım; Onur Danacıoglu; Turhan Caskurlu
Journal:  Urolithiasis       Date:  2013-12-10       Impact factor: 3.436

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.