Illumination matters part I: comparative analysis of light sources and illumination in flexible ureteroscopy-fundamental findings from a PEARLS analysis.
Air
Flexible ureteroscopy
Illumination
Light properties
Saline
Journal
World journal of urology
ISSN: 1433-8726
Titre abrégé: World J Urol
Pays: Germany
ID NLM: 8307716
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
26 May 2024
26 May 2024
Historique:
received:
07
02
2024
accepted:
07
05
2024
medline:
26
5
2024
pubmed:
26
5
2024
entrez:
26
5
2024
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Illumination characteristics of flexible ureteroscopes have been evaluated in air, but not in saline, the native operative medium for endourology. The aim was to evaluate light properties of contemporary ureteroscopes in air versus saline, light distribution analysis, and color temperature. We evaluated the Storz Flex-Xc and Flex-X2s, Olympus V3 and P7, Pusen 7.5F and 9.2F, and OTU WiScope using a 3D printed black target board in-vitro model submerged in saline. A spectrometer was used for lux and color temperature measurements at different opening locations. Illuminance was higher in saline compared to air (5679 vs. 5205 lx with Flex-Xc, p = 0.02). Illuminance in saline differed between ureteroscopes (ANOVA p < 0.001), with highest for the Flex-Xc at 100% brightness setting (5679 lx), followed by Pusen 9.2F (5280 lx), Flex-X2s (4613 lx), P7 (4371 lx), V3 (2374 lx), WiScope (582 lx) and finally Pusen 7.5F (255 lx). The same ranking was found at 50% brightness setting, with the highest ureteroscope illuminance value 34 times that of the scope with lowest illuminance. Most scopes had maximum illuminance off center, with skewness. Three scopes had two light sources, with one light source for all other scopes. Inter-scope comparisons revealed significant differences of color temperature (ANOVA p < 0.001). The study demonstrates the presence of inhomogeneous light spread as well as large differences in illumination properties of ureteroscopes, possibly impacting on the performance of individual scopes in vivo. Additionally, the study suggests that future studies on illumination characteristics of flexible ureteroscopes should ideally be done in saline, and no longer in air.
Identifiants
pubmed: 38796790
doi: 10.1007/s00345-024-05037-7
pii: 10.1007/s00345-024-05037-7
doi:
Substances chimiques
Saline Solution
0
Types de publication
Journal Article
Comparative Study
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
355Informations de copyright
© 2024. The Author(s).
Références
Geraghty RM, Jones P, Somani BK (2017) Worldwide trends of urinary stone disease treatment over the last two decades: a systematic review. J Endourol 31(6):547–556. https://doi.org/10.1089/end.2016.0895
doi: 10.1089/end.2016.0895
pubmed: 28095709
Heers H, Stay D, Wiesmann T, Hofmann R (2022) Urolithiasis in Germany: trends from the national DRG database. Urol Int 106(6):589–595. https://doi.org/10.1159/000520372
doi: 10.1159/000520372
pubmed: 34883491
Giusti G, Proietti S, Peschechera R, Taverna G, Sortino G, Cindolo L et al (2015) Sky is no limit for ureteroscopy: extending the indications and special circumstances. World J Urol 33(2):257–273. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-014-1345-y
doi: 10.1007/s00345-014-1345-y
pubmed: 24962930
Proietti S, Dragos L, Molina W, Doizi S, Giusti G, Traxer O (2016) Comparison of new single-use digital flexible ureteroscope versus nondisposable fiber optic and digital ureteroscope in a cadaveric model. J Endourol 30(6):655–659. https://doi.org/10.1089/end.2016.0051
doi: 10.1089/end.2016.0051
pubmed: 27084572
pmcid: 4913498
Lusch A, Abdelshehid C, Hidas G, Osann KE, Okhunov Z, McDougall E et al (2013) In vitro and in vivo comparison of optics and performance of a distal sensor ureteroscope versus a standard fiberoptic ureteroscope. J Endourol 27(7):896–902. https://doi.org/10.1089/end.2013.0003
doi: 10.1089/end.2013.0003
pubmed: 23402369
pmcid: 3826566
Hendriks N, Henderickx MMEL, Schout BMA, Baard J, van Etten-Jamaludin FS, Beerlage HP et al (2021) How to evaluate a flexible ureterorenoscope? systematic mapping of existing evaluation methods. BJU Int 128(4):408–423. https://doi.org/10.1111/bju.15544
doi: 10.1111/bju.15544
pubmed: 34242475
pmcid: 8519042
Bader MJ, Gratzke C, Walther S, Schlenker B, Tilki D, Hocaoglu Y et al (2010) The polyscope: a modular design, semidisposable flexible ureterorenoscope system. J Endourol 24(7):1061–1066. https://doi.org/10.1089/end.2010.0077
doi: 10.1089/end.2010.0077
pubmed: 20575699
Dragos LB, Somani BK, Keller EX, De Coninck VMJ, Herrero MRM, Kamphuis GM et al (2019) Characteristics of current digital single-use flexible ureteroscopes versus their reusable counterparts: an in-vitro comparative analysis. Transl Androl Urol 8:S359–S370. https://doi.org/10.21037/tau.2019.09.17
doi: 10.21037/tau.2019.09.17
pubmed: 31656742
pmcid: 6790413
Doizi S, Kamphuis G, Giusti G, Andreassen KH, Knoll T, Osther PJ et al (2017) First clinical evaluation of a new single-use flexible ureteroscope (LithoVue™): a European prospective multicentric feasibility study. World J Urol 35(5):809–818. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-016-1936-x
doi: 10.1007/s00345-016-1936-x
pubmed: 27671898
Schlager D, Obaid MA, Hein S, Wilhelm K, Schönthaler M, Gratzke C et al (2020) Current disposable ureteroscopes: performance and limitations in a standardized kidney model. J Endourol 34(10):1015–1020. https://doi.org/10.1089/end.2020.0185
doi: 10.1089/end.2020.0185
pubmed: 32475165
Patil A, Agrawal S, Batra R, Singh A, Ganpule A, Sabnis R et al (2023) Single-use flexible ureteroscopes: comparative in vitro analysis of four scopes. Asian J Urol 10(1):64–69. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajur.2022.02.001
doi: 10.1016/j.ajur.2022.02.001
pubmed: 36721687
Deininger S, Haberstock L, Kruck S, Neumann E, da Costa IA, Todenhöfer T et al (2018) Single-use versus reusable ureterorenoscopes for retrograde intrarenal surgery (RIRS): systematic comparative analysis of physical and optical properties in three different devices. World J Urol 36(12):2059–2063. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-018-2365-9
doi: 10.1007/s00345-018-2365-9
pubmed: 29869701
Paffen MLJE, Keizer JG, De Winter GV, Arends AJ, Hendrikx AJM (2008) A comparison of the physical properties of four new generation flexible ureteroscopes: (de)flection, flow properties, torsion stiffness, and optical characteristics. J Endourol 22(10):2227–2234. https://doi.org/10.1089/end.2008.0371
doi: 10.1089/end.2008.0371
pubmed: 18831670
Afane JS, Olweny EO, Bercowsky E, Sundaram CP, Dunn MD, Shalhav AL et al (2000) Flexible ureteroscopes: a single center evaluation of the durability and function of the new endoscopes smaller than 9fr. J Urol 164(4):1164–1168. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-5347(05)67133-9
doi: 10.1016/S0022-5347(05)67133-9
pubmed: 10992358
Abdelshehid C, Ahlering MT, Chou D, Park HK, Basillote J, Lee D et al (2005) Comparison of flexible ureteroscopes: deflection, irrigant flow and optical characteristics. J Urol 173(6):2017–2021. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.ju.0000158139.65771.0a
doi: 10.1097/01.ju.0000158139.65771.0a
pubmed: 15879808
Wilson CR, Kennedy JD, Irby PB, Fried NM (2018) Miniature ureteroscope distal tip designs for potential use in thulium fiber laser lithotripsy. J Biomed Opt. https://doi.org/10.1117/1.JBO.23.7.076003
doi: 10.1117/1.JBO.23.7.076003
pubmed: 30378351
pmcid: 6995878
Zhuang S, Ji Y, Tu D, Zhang X (2022) Underwater RGB-D camera based on binocular stereo vision. Guangzi Xuebao/Acta Photonica Sinica 51(4):161–175. https://doi.org/10.3788/gzxb20225104.0404003
doi: 10.3788/gzxb20225104.0404003
Schaar R: 2023. https://www.vishay.com/docs/84331/designingveml6040.pdf . Accessed 31 March 2023
Marroig B, Favorito LA, Fortes MA, Sampaio FJB (2015) Lower pole anatomy and mid-renal-zone classification applied to flexible ureteroscopy: experimental study using human three-dimensional endocasts. Surg Radiol Anat 37(10):1243–1249. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00276-015-1503-y
doi: 10.1007/s00276-015-1503-y
pubmed: 26044783
Aldoukhi AH, Roberts WW, Hall TL, Teichman JMH, Ghani KR (2018) Understanding the popcorn effect during holmium laser lithotripsy for dusting. Urology 122:52–57. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urology.2018.08.031
doi: 10.1016/j.urology.2018.08.031
pubmed: 30195011
Rasband WS. 2018 U. S. National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland, USA1997–. p. ImageJ.
Babicki S, Arndt D, Marcu A, Liang Y, Grant JR, Maciejewski A et al (2016) Heatmapper: web-enabled heat mapping for all. Nucleic Acids Res 44(1):W147–W153. https://doi.org/10.1093/NAR/GKW419
doi: 10.1093/NAR/GKW419
pubmed: 27190236
pmcid: 4987948
Talso M, Proietti S, Emiliani E, Gallioli A, Dragos L, Orosa A et al (2018) Comparison of flexible ureterorenoscope quality of vision: an in vitro study. J Endourol 32(6):523–528. https://doi.org/10.1089/end.2017.0838
doi: 10.1089/end.2017.0838
pubmed: 29562765
Villa L, Ventimiglia E, Proietti S, Giusti G, Briganti A, Salonia A et al (2020) Does working channel position influence the effectiveness of flexible ureteroscopy? results from an in vitro study. BJU Int 125(3):449–456. https://doi.org/10.1111/bju.14923
doi: 10.1111/bju.14923
pubmed: 31610080
Traxer O, Dubosq F, Jamali K, Gattegno B, Thibault P (2006) New-generation flexible ureterorenoscopes are more durable than previous ones. Urology 68(2):276–279. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urology.2006.02.043
doi: 10.1016/j.urology.2006.02.043
pubmed: 16904434
Miller CS, Whiles BB, Ito WE, Machen E, Thompson JA, Duchene DA et al (2023) Image distortion during flexible ureteroscopy: a laboratory model comparing super pulsed thulium fiber laser vs high-power HO:YAG laser. J Endourol 37(1):99–104. https://doi.org/10.1089/end.2022.0195
doi: 10.1089/end.2022.0195
pubmed: 36106599
Estrade V, Daudon M, Richard E, Bernhard JC, Bladou F, Robert G et al (2022) Towards automatic recognition of pure and mixed stones using intra-operative endoscopic digital images. BJU Int 129(2):234–242. https://doi.org/10.1111/bju.15515
doi: 10.1111/bju.15515
pubmed: 34133814
Zeeshan Hameed BM, Aiswarya Dhavileswarapu VLS, Raza SZ, Karimi H, Khanuja HS, Shetty DK et al (2021) Artificial intelligence and its impact on urological diseases and management: a comprehensive review of the literature. J Clin Med. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm10091864
doi: 10.3390/jcm10091864
Kwok J-L, Panthier F, De Coninck V, Ventimiglia E, Barghouthy Y, Danilovic A et al (2024) Illumination matters part II: advanced comparative analysis of flexible ureteroscopes in a kidney model by pearls. World J Urol 42(1):298. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-024-04987-2
doi: 10.1007/s00345-024-04987-2
pubmed: 38709327
pmcid: 11074033
Kwok J-L, Ventimiglia E, De Coninck V, Sierra A, Panthier F, Corrales M et al (2024) Illumination matters part III: impact of light obstruction on illuminance from flexible ureteroscopes - a comparative PEARLS analysis. World J Urol 42(1):188. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-024-04910-9
doi: 10.1007/s00345-024-04910-9
pubmed: 38520528
pmcid: 10960769
Kwok J-L, De Coninck V, Panthier F, Kamkoum H, Pauchard F, Shrestha A et al (2024) Illumination matters part IV: blackout and whiteout in flexible ureteroscopy - first report on a phenomenon observed by PEARLS. World J Urol. 42(1):294. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-024-04988-1
doi: 10.1007/s00345-024-04988-1
pubmed: 38704777
pmcid: 11070394