Literature DB >> 31087123

Prospective comparative study between the effect of CIDEX® OPA and STERRAD NX on the durability of digital flexible ureteroscope.

Saeed H Al Qahtani1, Mohamed H Abdelhamied2,3, Abdulrahman H AlMuhrij1, Mizyad Y Al Rawashada4, Ahmed M Al Askar1, Amr M Abdelhamid5, Tarek K Fath El-Bab5, Ehab M Galal5, Mahmoud S Eladawy6.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: We compared the effect of chemical disinfection (CIDEX® OPA) and low-temperature hydrogen peroxide gas plasma (STERRAD NX) on two brand new digital flexible ureteroscope (DFU) (Flex-Xc) using subjective and objective parameters.
METHODS: Over 11-month period, all flexible ureteroscopic procedures that fulfill the inclusion criteria were done by two brand new flexible ureteroscopes and were prospectively evaluated. Intraoperative data included total operative time, laser power and duration, stone criteria and subjective evaluation of the procedure as well as visibility and maneuverability scores were reported. The end point of the study was when the scope was deemed by the surgeon as unable to perform the procedure; when leak test is positive.
RESULTS: A total of 88 patients were randomized either for the first flexible ureteroscope disinfected using Cidex® OPA (n = 59, 67%) or second ureteroscope sterilized with Sterrad NX (n = 29, 33%). Intraoperative, the first DFU was significantly used with a total operative time of approximately 49 h compared to the second one (p < 0.001). In the same context, laser power parameters were significantly different among the two groups (p = 0.003). The subjective evaluation of the procedure, maneuverability, visibility scores, laser duration, stone burden and post-operative infection rate were statistically insignificant between both groups. At the end point of the study, the deflection in up and downward directions for both DFU were measured.
CONCLUSIONS: The durability and longevity of the DFU is strongly related to the sterilization method. Our findings suggest that CIDEX® OPA should prioritize Sterrad in sterilization of DFU.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Cidex; Durability; Flexible ureteroscopy; Sterilization; Sterrad

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2019        PMID: 31087123     DOI: 10.1007/s00345-019-02800-z

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  World J Urol        ISSN: 0724-4983            Impact factor:   4.226


  24 in total

1.  Flexible ureteroscopes: a single center evaluation of the durability and function of the new endoscopes smaller than 9Fr.

Authors:  J S Afane; E O Olweny; E Bercowsky; C P Sundaram; M D Dunn; A L Shalhav; E M McDougall; R V Clayman
Journal:  J Urol       Date:  2000-10       Impact factor: 7.450

2.  Cost Analysis of Flexible Ureteroscope Repairs: Evaluation of 655 Procedures in a Community-Based Practice.

Authors:  Eugene Kramolowsky; Zachary McDowell; Blake Moore; Brigette Booth; Nada Wood
Journal:  J Endourol       Date:  2015-12-14       Impact factor: 2.942

3.  New-generation flexible ureterorenoscopes are more durable than previous ones.

Authors:  Olivier Traxer; Francis Dubosq; Karim Jamali; Bernard Gattegno; Philippe Thibault
Journal:  Urology       Date:  2006-08       Impact factor: 2.649

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

Authors:  Razvan Multescu; Bogdan Geavlete; Petrisor Geavlete
Journal:  Urology       Date:  2013-08-28       Impact factor: 2.649

5.  Is there a difference in outcomes between digital and fiberoptic flexible ureterorenoscopy procedures?

Authors:  Murat Binbay; Emrah Yuruk; Tolga Akman; Faruk Ozgor; Mahir Seyrek; Unsal Ozkuvanci; Yalcin Berberoglu; Ahmet Yaser Muslumanoglu
Journal:  J Endourol       Date:  2010-11-02       Impact factor: 2.942

Review 6.  Sterilization of endoscopic instruments.

Authors:  Ravindra B Sabnis; Amit Bhattu; Mohankumar Vijaykumar
Journal:  Curr Opin Urol       Date:  2014-03       Impact factor: 2.309

7.  The Economic Implications of a Reusable Flexible Digital Ureteroscope: A Cost-Benefit Analysis.

Authors:  Christopher J Martin; Sean B McAdams; Haidar Abdul-Muhsin; Victoria M Lim; Rafael Nunez-Nateras; Mark D Tyson; Mitchell R Humphreys
Journal:  J Urol       Date:  2016-09-28       Impact factor: 7.450

8.  Improving the durability of digital flexible ureteroscopes.

Authors:  Theocharis Karaolides; Christian Bach; Stefanos Kachrilas; Anuj Goyal; Junaid Masood; Noor Buchholz
Journal:  Urology       Date:  2013-03-07       Impact factor: 2.649

9.  Anaphylaxis following cystoscopy with equipment sterilized with Cidex OPA (ortho-phthalaldehyde): a review of two cases.

Authors:  Daniel E Cooper; Andrew A White; Angelina N Werkema; Brain K Auge
Journal:  J Endourol       Date:  2008-09       Impact factor: 2.942

10.  An evaluation of Cidex OPA (0.55% ortho-phthalaldehyde) as an alternative to 2% glutaraldehyde for high-level disinfection of endoscopes.

Authors:  R P D Cooke; S V Goddard; A Whymant-Morris; J Sherwood; R Chatterly
Journal:  J Hosp Infect       Date:  2003-07       Impact factor: 3.926

View more
  2 in total

Review 1.  Repair Rate and Associated Costs of Reusable Flexible Ureteroscopes: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

Authors:  Dinah K Rindorf; Thomas Tailly; Guido M Kamphuis; Sara Larsen; Bhaskar K Somani; Olivier Traxer; Kevin Koo
Journal:  Eur Urol Open Sci       Date:  2022-01-29

2.  Comparative analysis of retrograde intrarenal surgery and modified ultra-mini percutaneous nephrolithotomy in management of lower pole renal stones (1.5-3.5 cm).

Authors:  Zhuohang Li; Cong Lai; Arvind K Shah; Weibin Xie; Cheng Liu; Li Huang; Kuiqing Li; Hao Yu; Kewei Xu
Journal:  BMC Urol       Date:  2020-03-16       Impact factor: 2.264

  2 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.