Rahul Dutta1,2, Renai Yoon1, Roshan M Patel1, Kyle Spradling3, Zhamshid Okhunov1, William Sohn4, Hak J Lee5, Jaime Landman1, Ralph V Clayman1. 1. 1 Department of Urology, University of California , Irvine, Orange, California. 2. 2 Division of Urology, Department of Surgery, Rutgers New Jersey Medical School , Newark, New Jersey. 3. 3 Department of Urology, Stanford University , Stanford, California. 4. 4 Department of Urology, Kaiser Permanente , Fontana, California. 5. 5 Gordon Urology, Gordon Hospital , Calhoun, Georgia .
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To compare conventional videocystoscopy (CVC) with a novel and affordable (approximately $45) mobile cystoscopy system, the Endockscope (ES). We evaluated the ES system using both fluid (Endockscope-Fluid [ES-F]) and air (Endockscope-Air [ES-A]) to fill the bladder in an effort to expand the global range of flexible cystoscopy. METHODS: The ES system comprised a portable 1000 lumen LED self-contained cordless light source and a three-dimensional printed adaptor that connects a mobile phone to a flexible fiber-optic cystoscope. Patients undergoing in-office cystoscopic evaluation for either stent removal or bladder cancer surveillance received three examinations: conventional, ES-F, and ES-A cystoscopy. Videos of each examination were recorded and analyzed by expert endoscopists for image quality/resolution, brightness, color quality, sharpness, overall quality, and whether or not they were acceptable for diagnostic purposes. RESULTS: Six of the 10 patients for whom the conventional videos were 100% acceptable for diagnostic purposes were included in our analysis. The conventional videos scored higher on every metric relative to both the ES-F and ES-A videos (p < 0.05). There was no difference between ES-F and ES-A videos on any metric. Fifty-two percent and 44% of the ES-F and ES-A videos, respectively, were considered acceptable for diagnostic purposes (p = 0.384). CONCLUSIONS: The ES mobile cystoscopy system may be a reasonable option in settings where electricity, sterile fluid irrigant, or access to CVC equipment is unavailable.
OBJECTIVE: To compare conventional videocystoscopy (CVC) with a novel and affordable (approximately $45) mobile cystoscopy system, the Endockscope (ES). We evaluated the ES system using both fluid (Endockscope-Fluid [ES-F]) and air (Endockscope-Air [ES-A]) to fill the bladder in an effort to expand the global range of flexible cystoscopy. METHODS: The ES system comprised a portable 1000 lumen LED self-contained cordless light source and a three-dimensional printed adaptor that connects a mobile phone to a flexible fiber-optic cystoscope. Patients undergoing in-office cystoscopic evaluation for either stent removal or bladder cancer surveillance received three examinations: conventional, ES-F, and ES-A cystoscopy. Videos of each examination were recorded and analyzed by expert endoscopists for image quality/resolution, brightness, color quality, sharpness, overall quality, and whether or not they were acceptable for diagnostic purposes. RESULTS: Six of the 10 patients for whom the conventional videos were 100% acceptable for diagnostic purposes were included in our analysis. The conventional videos scored higher on every metric relative to both the ES-F and ES-A videos (p < 0.05). There was no difference between ES-F and ES-A videos on any metric. Fifty-two percent and 44% of the ES-F and ES-A videos, respectively, were considered acceptable for diagnostic purposes (p = 0.384). CONCLUSIONS: The ES mobile cystoscopy system may be a reasonable option in settings where electricity, sterile fluid irrigant, or access to CVC equipment is unavailable.
Entities:
Keywords:
Endockscope; air cystoscopy; mobile technology
Authors: Federico Gheza; Fadekemi O Oginni; Simone Crivellaro; Mario A Masrur; Adewale O Adisa Journal: World J Surg Date: 2018-11 Impact factor: 3.352
Authors: Shlomi Tapiero; Renai Yoon; Francis Jefferson; John Sung; Luke Limfueco; Courtney Cottone; Sherry Lu; Roshan M Patel; Jaime Landman; Ralph V Clayman Journal: World J Urol Date: 2019-10-09 Impact factor: 4.226