MP33-18 FOURTH GENERATION FLEXIBLE URETEROSCOPES: A COMPARISON OF OPTICS, DEFLECTION AND FLOW

Abstract

You have accessJournal of UrologyStone Disease: Surgical Therapy III1 Apr 2016MP33-18 FOURTH GENERATION FLEXIBLE URETEROSCOPES: A COMPARISON OF OPTICS, DEFLECTION AND FLOW Adam Kaplan, Daniela Radvak, Richard Shin, Annika Ackerman, Tony Chen, Fernando Cabrera, Joanne Dale, Michael Ferrandino, Charles Scales, Neal Simmons, Glenn Preminger, and Michael Lipkin Adam KaplanAdam Kaplan More articles by this author , Daniela RadvakDaniela Radvak More articles by this author , Richard ShinRichard Shin More articles by this author , Annika AckermanAnnika Ackerman More articles by this author , Tony ChenTony Chen More articles by this author , Fernando CabreraFernando Cabrera More articles by this author , Joanne DaleJoanne Dale More articles by this author , Michael FerrandinoMichael Ferrandino More articles by this author , Charles ScalesCharles Scales More articles by this author , Neal SimmonsNeal Simmons More articles by this author , Glenn PremingerGlenn Preminger More articles by this author , and Michael LipkinMichael Lipkin More articles by this author View All Author Informationhttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2016.02.1375AboutPDF ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload CitationsTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints ShareFacebookTwitterLinked InEmail INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES Flexible ureteroscopes remain in continual evolution, with improved optical characteristics and maneuverability with each generation. They now have smaller diameters than their predecessors and improved imaging capabilities, among other benefits. In this study, three ureteroscopes were directly compared with regards to optics, ureteroscope deflection and irrigation flow. METHODS Two digital flexible ureteroscopes including the Flex-Xc (Karl Storz, Germany) and URF-V2 (Olympus, Japan) and one fiberoptic flexible ureteroscope (URF-P6, Olympus, Japan) were assessed in vitro for image resolution, distortion, field of view, depth of field, grayscale imaging and color representation. Ureteroscope deflection was tested with an empty channel followed by placement of a 200 μm laser fiber, a 1.9F wire basket, a 2.0F Nanoelectric pulse lithotripsy (NPL) probe and a 2.4F NPL probe. Ureteroscope irrigation flow was measured using normal saline at 100 cm, with an empty channel followed by a 200 μm laser fiber, a 1.9F wire basket and a 2.0F NPL probe. RESULTS The optical characteristics of the three ureteroscopes are shown in Table 1. The digital platforms showed superior resolution and depth of field while the Fiberoptic platform had a larger field of view. No substantial difference was demonstrated in color reproducibility or grayscale discernment. Maximal deflection of each ureteroscope is shown in table 1. There was no significant difference in impact on deflection between the ureteroscopes by instruments in the working channel. With an empty channel, the flow rates of the URF-V2 and URF-P6 were identical and significantly lower than the Flex-Xc (p=0.001). The Flex-Xc maintained significantly faster flow with instruments in the channel than both the URF-V2 and URF-P6 (p=0.03). CONCLUSIONS The flexible ureteroscopes tested showed excellent optical, deflection and flow capabilities. The resolution of the digital ureteroscopes is superior to the fiberoptic scope, yet the field of view is limited. The Flex-Xc showed deflection comparable to the URF-P6, and improved flow rates over the URF-V2 and URF-P6. © 2016FiguresReferencesRelatedDetails Volume 195Issue 4SApril 2016Page: e443-e444 Advertisement Copyright & Permissions© 2016MetricsAuthor Information Adam Kaplan More articles by this author Daniela Radvak More articles by this author Richard Shin More articles by this author Annika Ackerman More articles by this author Tony Chen More articles by this author Fernando Cabrera More articles by this author Joanne Dale More articles by this author Michael Ferrandino More articles by this author Charles Scales More articles by this author Neal Simmons More articles by this author Glenn Preminger More articles by this author Michael Lipkin More articles by this author Expand All Advertisement Advertisement PDF downloadLoading ...