Evaluation of a new disposable flexible ureterorenoscope and comparison to an established disposable flexible ureterorenoscope: a prospective, observational study.
Endoscopes
Laser lithotripsy
Renal calculi
Renoscopy
Stone disease
Ureteroscopy
Journal
International urology and nephrology
ISSN: 1573-2584
Titre abrégé: Int Urol Nephrol
Pays: Netherlands
ID NLM: 0262521
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
May 2021
May 2021
Historique:
received:
19
10
2020
accepted:
27
11
2020
pubmed:
3
1
2021
medline:
1
10
2021
entrez:
2
1
2021
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
To objectively and subjectively assess the performance and surgical outcomes of the new Innovex EU-scope™ single-use digital flexible ureteroscope (fURS). A prospective cohort study was carried out (August 2019 to May 2020). The new single-use fURS (Innovex Medical Devices Co. Shanghai, China) was analysed with regard to visibility, manoeuvrability, laser interference and overall performance using a validated Likert scale. Outcomes are compared to the LithoVue™ (Boston Scientific, Marlborough, MA). One hundred patients were included in this study. 50 cases underwent retrograde fURS using the Innovex EU-scope™ and 50 with the LithoVue™. There were no differences in the patient demographics data, or operative data between the two groups. The Innovex EU-scope™ scored higher visibility scores compared to the LithoVue™, median 4, interquartile range (IQR) (4-4), vs. 3.5, IQR (3-5), p = 0.5086. Both scopes had similar manoeuvrability scores. The Innovex EU-scope™ scored significantly lower with regard to comfort compared to the LithoVue, median 4 IQR (3-4) vs. 4.5 IQR (4-5), p = 0.0445. Whereas, laser interference, affected the Innovex much less than the LithoVue™. Both scopes scored well for overall performance. The median overall performance score for the Innovex was 4 IQR (4-4) vs. 4 IQR (4-5). This Innovex EU-scope™ has good objective and subjective visibility and manoeuvrability profiles. This single-use flexible ureteroscope may achieve similar clinical outcomes to an established single use instrument.
Identifiants
pubmed: 33386582
doi: 10.1007/s11255-020-02727-0
pii: 10.1007/s11255-020-02727-0
doi:
Types de publication
Comparative Study
Journal Article
Observational Study
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
875-881Références
Bagley DH (1987) Flexible ureteropyeloscopy with modular, “disposable” endoscope. Urology 29:296–300
doi: 10.1016/0090-4295(87)90074-4
Mues AC, Teichman JM, Knudsen BE (2009) Evaluation of 24 holmium:YAG laser optical fibers for flexible ureteroscopy. J Urol 182:348–354
doi: 10.1016/j.juro.2009.02.112
Shah K, Monga M, Knudsen B (2015) Prospective randomized trial comparing 2 flexible digital ureteroscopes: ACMI/Olympus InvisioDUR-D and Olympus URF-V. Urology 85:1267–1271
doi: 10.1016/j.urology.2014.12.012
Knudsen B, Miyaoka R, Shah K et al (2010) Durability of the next-generation flexible fiberoptic ureteroscopes: a randomized prospective multi-institutional clinical trial. Urology 75:534–538
doi: 10.1016/j.urology.2009.06.093
Monga M, Best S, Venkatesh R et al (2006) Durability of flexible ureteroscopes: a randomized, prospective study. J Urol 176:137–141
doi: 10.1016/S0022-5347(06)00575-1
Hennessey DB, Fojecki GL, Papa NP, Lawrentschuk N, Bolton D (2018) Single-use disposable digital flexible ureteroscopes: an ex vivo assessment and cost analysis. BJU Int 121(Suppl 3):55–61
doi: 10.1111/bju.14235
Tom WR, Wollin DA, Jiang R et al (2017) Next-generation single-use ureteroscopes: an in vitro comparison. J Endourol 31:1301–1306
doi: 10.1089/end.2017.0447
Bader MJ, Gratzke C, Walther S et al (2010) The PolyScope: a modular design, semidisposable flexible ureterorenoscope system. J Endourol 24:1061–1066
doi: 10.1089/end.2010.0077
Emiliani E, Mercade A, Millan F, Sanchez-Martin F, Konstantinidis CA, Angerri O (2018) First clinical evaluation of the new single-use flexible and semirigid Pusenureteroscopes. Cent Eur J Urol 71:208–213
Proietti S, Dragos L, Molina W, Doizi S, Giusti G, Traxer O (2016) Comparison of new single-use digital flexible ureteroscope versus nondisposablefiber optic and digital ureteroscope in a cadaveric model. J Endourol 30:655–659
doi: 10.1089/end.2016.0051
Dale J, Kaplan AG, Radvak D et al (2017) Evaluation of a novel single-use flexible ureteroscope. J Endourol. https://doi.org/10.1089/end.2016.0237
doi: 10.1089/end.2016.0237
pubmed: 28401803
Kam J, Yuminaga Y, Beattie K et al (2019) Single use versus reusable digital flexible ureteroscopes: a prospective comparative study. Int J Urol 26:999–1005
doi: 10.1111/iju.14091
Doizi S, Kamphuis G, Giusti G et al (2017) First clinical evaluation of a new single-use flexible ureteroscope (LithoVue): a European prospective multicentric feasibility study. World J Urol 35:809–818
doi: 10.1007/s00345-016-1936-x
Ogreden E, Oguz U, Demirelli E et al (2016) Categorization of ureteroscopy complications and investigation of associated factors by using the modified Clavien classification system. Turk J Med Sci 46:686–694
doi: 10.3906/sag-1503-9
Rukin NJ, Siddiqui ZA, Chedgy ECP, Somani BK (2017) Trends in upper tract stone disease in england: evidence from the hospital episodes statistics database. Urol Int 98:391–396
doi: 10.1159/000449510
Ordon M, Urbach D, Mamdani M, Saskin R, Honey RJ, Pace KT (2015) A population based study of the changing demographics of patients undergoing definitive treatment for kidney stone disease. J Urol 193:869–874
doi: 10.1016/j.juro.2014.09.096
Wendt-Nordahl G, Mut T, Krombach P, Michel MS, Knoll T (2011) Do new generation flexible ureterorenoscopes offer a higher treatment success than their predecessors? Urol Res 39:185–188
doi: 10.1007/s00240-010-0331-0
Talso M, Goumas IK, Kamphuis GM et al (2019) Reusable flexible ureterorenoscopes are more cost-effective than single-use scopes: results of a systematic review from PETRA Uro-group. Transl Androl Urol 8:S418–S425
doi: 10.21037/tau.2019.06.13