Literature DB >> 29239229

In Vitro Evaluation of Single-Use Digital Flexible Ureteroscopes: A Practical Comparison for a Patient-Centered Approach.

Giovanni Scala Marchini1,2, Carlos A Batagello1,2, Manoj Monga2, Fábio César Miranda Torricelli1,2, Fabio C Vicentini1, Alexandre Danilovic1, Miguel Srougi1, Willian C Nahas1, Eduardo Mazzucchi1.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To compare the manufacturing and in vitro performance characteristics of two single-use flexible ureteroscopes with a permanent optical flexible ureteroscope.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Two single-use flexible ureteroscopes, LithoVue (Boston Scientific) and Pusen (1rs. generation; Zhuhai Pusen Medical Technology Company Limited, China), were tested and compared with a permanent Flex-X2 ureteroscope (Karl Storz, Germany) in terms of technical characteristics, optics, deflection mechanism, and additional parameters which could potentially affect surgical technique.
RESULTS: Pusen was the lightest ureteroscope while the LithoVue had the longest working length. LithoVue had a higher resolution power than the other two ureteroscopes at all distances tested (p < 0.001). Pusen showed higher resolution than Flex-X2 (p < 0.01). Field of view was wider for LithoVue (87°), followed by Flex-X2 (85°) and Pusen (75°). Color representation was superior for Flex-X2 than LithoVue and then Pusen. LithoVue outperformed Pusen and Flex-X2 for all settings with instruments in terms of deflection loss (p < 0.01). Pusen had the highest irrigation flow (52 mL/min) with an empty working channel (p < 0.01). LithoVue and Pusen showed similar flow rates with a 200 μm (21 mL/min) and 365 μm laser fiber (7 mL/min) and 1.3F basket (18 mL/min), being superior to Flex-X2 (p < 0.01). With the 1.9F basket, LithoVue had superior flow rate (7 mL/min) than Pusen (3.5 mL/min) and Flex-X2 (4 mL/min; p = 0.01).
CONCLUSION: LithoVue outperformed the other ureteroscopes in terms of optical resolution, field of view, deflection capacity, and irrigation flow with larger instruments. Pusen is the lighter scope and showed better results in terms of irrigation when no instruments are in place. Flex-X2 was superior in terms of color representation.

Entities:  

Keywords:  instrumentation; ureteroscopy; urolithiasis

Mesh:

Year:  2018        PMID: 29239229     DOI: 10.1089/end.2017.0785

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Endourol        ISSN: 0892-7790            Impact factor:   2.942


  13 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.  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

3.  Comparison of the Efficacy and Complications of Soft Ureteroscopy Lithotripsy and Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy in the Treatment of Urinary Calculi: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

Authors:  WenLong Han; Jing Ge; Xianlin Xu
Journal:  Comput Math Methods Med       Date:  2022-07-01       Impact factor: 2.809

4.  Characteristics of current digital single-use flexible ureteroscopes versus their reusable counterparts: an in-vitro comparative analysis.

Authors:  Laurian B Dragos; Bhaskar K Somani; Etienne X Keller; Vincent M J De Coninck; Maria Rodriguez-Monsalve Herrero; Guido M Kamphuis; Ewa Bres-Niewada; Emre T Sener; Steeve Doizi; Oliver J Wiseman; Olivier Traxer
Journal:  Transl Androl Urol       Date:  2019-09

5.  LithoVue™ for renal stone therapy - a perfect fit for high volume academic centers; a retrospective evaluation of 108 cases.

Authors:  Maximilian Pallauf; Sabina Sevcenco; Christopher Steiner; Martin Drerup; Michael Mitterberger; Daniela Colleselli; Lukas Lusuardi; Thomas Kunit
Journal:  BMC Urol       Date:  2020-05-18       Impact factor: 2.264

Review 6.  A comprehensive literature-based equation to compare cost-effectiveness of a flexible ureteroscopy program with single-use versus reusable devices.

Authors:  Giovanni S Marchini; Fábio C Torricelli; Carlos A Batagello; Manoj Monga; Fábio C Vicentini; Alexandre Danilovic; Miguel Srougi; William C Nahas; Eduardo Mazzucchi
Journal:  Int Braz J Urol       Date:  2019 Jul-Aug       Impact factor: 1.541

7.  First clinical evaluation of the new single-use flexible and semirigid Pusen ureteroscopes.

Authors:  Esteban Emiliani; Asier Mercadé; Félix Millan; Francisco Sánchez-Martín; Cristian Andrés Konstantinidis; Oriol Angerri
Journal:  Cent European J Urol       Date:  2018-04-09

8.  Critical Assessment of Single-Use Ureteroscopes in an In Vivo Porcine Model.

Authors:  Brian Ceballos; Charles U Nottingham; Seth K Bechis; Roger L Sur; Brian R Matlaga; Amy E Krambeck
Journal:  Adv Urol       Date:  2020-04-27

9.  A clinical evaluation of the new digital single-use flexible ureteroscope (UscopePU3022): an international prospective multicentered study.

Authors:  Thomas James Johnston; Joyce Baard; Jean de la Rosette; Steeve Doizi; Guido Giusti; Thomas Knoll; Silvia Proietti; Marianne Brehmer; Esteban Emiliani; Daniel Pérez-Fentes; Palle Jorn Sloth Osther; Christian Seitz; Naomi Neal; Ben Turney; Mudhar Hasan; Olivier Traxer; Oliver Wiseman
Journal:  Cent European J Urol       Date:  2018-10-02

10.  Comparative investigation of reusable and single-use flexible endoscopes for urological interventions.

Authors:  Maximilian Eisel; Frank Strittmatter; Stephan Ströbl; Christian Freymüller; Thomas Pongratz; Ronald Sroka
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2020-03-30       Impact factor: 4.379

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.