Literature DB >> 23992972

A new era: performance and limitations of the latest models of flexible ureteroscopes.

Razvan Multescu1, Bogdan Geavlete, Petrisor Geavlete.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To comparatively study 3 of the latest models of flexible ureteroscopes using both subjective and objective parameters.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Three models of flexible ureteroscopes (Karl Storz Flex-Xc, Olympus URF-Vo, and Wolf Cobra) were evaluated during 90 procedures. For each model, 20 procedures were therapeutic for pyelocaliceal lithiasis and 10 were diagnostic. The maneuverability and visibility were scored and compared, and the irrigation flow and maximal deflection were measured in an ex vivo setting, with an empty working channel and with accessory instruments in place. Instrument durability was also reviewed.
RESULTS: All models demonstrated good maneuverability, with a slight advantage for the Flex-Xc. During the diagnostic procedures, failure to access the entire pyelocaliceal system occurred in 2 cases with the URF-Vo, both because of a thin caliceal infundibulum, and in 1 case with the Cobra, because of complex caliceal architecture. Regarding visibility, although the performance of the digital models was relatively similar, the fiberoptic Cobra achieved a lower score. Loss of deflection and irrigation when using the various ancillary instruments was similar for all 3 endoscopes, but the Cobra offered supplementary flow through a secondary channel. The mean deflection loss was 5% for the URF-Vo, 9% for the Flex-Xc, and 10% for the Cobra. The visual quality of the 2 digital models remained unchanged during the study; however, in the fiberoptic ureteroscope, 58 optic fibers were broken.
CONCLUSION: The latest models of flexible ureteroscopes have proved to be effective instruments for upper urinary tract endoscopic interventions. There is still room for improvement, already made possible by the technological advances.
Copyright © 2013 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2013        PMID: 23992972     DOI: 10.1016/j.urology.2013.07.022

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


  5 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

2.  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

Review 3.  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

Review 4.  Digital ureteroscopes: technology update.

Authors:  Chad M Gridley; Bodo E Knudsen
Journal:  Res Rep Urol       Date:  2017-01-27

5.  [Chinese Expert Consensus Statement on Clinical Evaluation System of Medical Endoscopy].

Authors: 
Journal:  Zhongguo Fei Ai Za Zhi       Date:  2020-06-20
  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.