Digital Flexible Ureteroscope Research Articles

Application of 11/13Fr suctioning ureteral access sheath and 8.55Fr single-use digital flexible ureteroscope in one-stage flexible ureteroscopic lithotripsy: an initial experience of 900 cases.

To report our initial experience of one-stage flexible ureteroscopic lithotripsy(FURL) with 11/13Fr suctioning ureteral access sheath(UAS) and 8.55Fr single-use digital flexible ureteroscope(SDFU) in upper ureteral or renal calculi. We retrospectively collected the clinical data of 900 adult patients with upper ureteral or renal calculi treated by FURL with 11/13Fr suctioning UAS and 8.55Fr SDFU from January 2022 to April 2024. Demographics, peri- and postoperative outcomes were assessed. In all, 40 of 940 cases(4.26%) failed to introduce UAS and required second-stage FURL because of ureterostenosis and were excluded. Mean stones size of the remaining 900 eligible cases was 1.68 ± 0.58cm in greatest diameter. There were 228 cases of upper ureteral stone, 456 cases of renal stone and 216 cases of concomitant ureteral and renal calculi. The mean operation time was 52.20 ± 20.21min and the postoperative hospital stay was 2.87 ± 1.37 days. The stone-free rate of 1 month postoperatively was 89.56% and only 2.44% of patients with residue underwent additional reoperation. The rate of postoperative fever, postoperative pain needing analgesic and slight ureteral mucosal injury were 5.11%, 8.22% and 7.78%, respectively. None of patient suffered from severe complications, such as sepsis or ureteral perforation. It's practical and suitable for the vast majority of adult patients to undergo FURL in single session with 11/13Fr suctioning UAS without preoperative stenting. FURL with 11/13Fr suctioning UAS and 8.55Fr SDFU is feasible, reliable, safe, and efficient in the management of renal stone and upper ureteral stone.

Assessment of the economic relevance of the use of single-use digital flexible ureteroscopes

Introduction: Breakages and repairs related to flexible digital reusable ureteroscopes (flURS) are expensive. Thus, we aimed to assess the cost-effectiveness of single-use flexible digital ureteroscopes (SUDFU). Methods: We conducted a literature review on MEDLINE and EMBASE until September 19, 2018. Systematic reviews and guidelines were assessed for methodologic quality by using standardized grids (R-AMSTAR and AGREE-II). Original studies were analyzed according to local customized grids. The CAPS (Critical Appraisal Skills Program) tool enabled the assessment of the economic aspects in the literature. We also collected local data over a year in 2017–2018 and conducted an economic evaluation by cost minimization, comparing SUDFU and flURS in our center. By generating different flURS breakage reduction scenarios, we aimed to demonstrate the budgetary impact that would have SUFDU introduction in our center. Results: Five economic studies were included. Data on flURS showed breakage rates between 6.4% and 13.2%, and mean numbers of interventions before breakage between 7.5 and 14.4. Four of the five economic analyses suggested a higher cost per intervention with SUDFU. Our local data demonstrated similar results (6.4% and 11.8 cases) and enabled us to estimate the annual number of ureteroscopies for which SUDFU would become profitable: 11–26 (depending on the chosen device). Furthermore, we illustrated how selective use of SUFDU can reduce annual costs by avoiding breakages in different scenarios. Conclusions: The mean cost per intervention with SUDFU is usually higher than with flURS in high-volume centers and exclusive use becomes unprofitable from a small number of cases.

The cost-effectiveness of reusable flexible ureteroscopes: An institutional audit.

A flexible ureteroscope (FU) is an important tool in the urologist's armamentarium. This study aims to check the durability and cost-effectiveness of conventional FU. The institution registry of damaged FU over the last 7 years was reviewed. A total of 17 flexible scopes were used. The data of 13 scopes (11 Storz fiberoptic and 2 Seesheen digital) are included in this study. A total of 1905 cases were performed. The cost of scope, duration of use, number of cases done by each scope, and nature of damage were evaluated. We compared the cost-effectiveness of conventional scopes with published costs on disposable scopes. The mean number of cases done by fiberoptic scope was 159 (range 25-334). The total cases done by 2 digital scopes were 135 and 25. The mean life of fiberoptic and digital scopes was 17 (range 4-31) and 8 months, respectively. The mean cost of fiberoptic scope was Indian Rupee (INR) 338,951 ($4082.7221) and INR 525,000 ($6323.7138) for digital scope. The cost per case for reusable scope is calculated by dividing the mean cost of FU by the mean number of cases done. The reprocessing cost of INR 527 was then added. Thus, the average cost per procedure for fiberoptic and digital FU was INR 2658.76 and INR 7089.50, respectively. We compared this cost with a projected cost of disposable FUbased on today's market data, which ranged from INR 60,000 to 107,427. The reusable scopes are durable, cost-effective, and an excellent option for high case-load institutions.

Comparing outcomes of single-use vs reusable ureteroscopes: a systematic review and meta analysis.

Flexible ureterolithotripsy is a frequent urological procedure, usually used to remove stones from the kidney and upper ureter. Reusable uretero-scopes were the standard tool for that procedure, but recent concerns related to sterility and maintenance and repair costs created the opportunity to develop new technologies. In 2016, the first single-use digital flexible ureteroscope was introduced. Since then, other single-use ureteroscopes were developed, and studies compared them with the reusable ureteroscopes with conflicting results. The purpose of this study is to describe the literature that compares the performance of single-use and reusable flexible ureteroscopes in retrograde intrarenal surgery for urinary stones. A Systematic Review was performed in October 2022 in accordance with the Cochrane Handbook and the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and MetaAnalyses (PRISMA). A search in MEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of Science, Google Scholar and LILACS retrieved 10,039 articles. After screening, 12 articles were selected for the Meta-Analysis. No differences were found in stone-free rate (OR 1.31, CI 95% [0.88, 1.97]), operative time (MD 0.12, CI 95% [-5.52, 5.76]), incidence of post-operative fever (OR 0.64, CI 95% [0.22, 1.89]), or incidence of post-operative urinary tract infection (OR 0.63 CI 95% [0.30, 1.32]). No differences were observed in the studied variables. Hence, the device choice should rely on the availability, cost analysis and surgeons' preference.

Intrarenal Pressure Measured Using a Novel Flexible Ureteroscope with Pressure Sensing Capabilities: A Study of the Effects of Ureteral Access Sheath, Irrigation, and Working Channel Accessories.

Introduction: Intrarenal pressure is emerging as an important monitoring parameter during flexible ureteroscopy (fURS). We measure how intraoperative conditions affect intrarenal pressure using a novel pressure sensing ureteroscope. Methods: The LithoVue Elite (LVE) single-use digital flexible ureteroscope (Boston Scientific) is the first commercial ureteroscope that senses pressure at its tip. LVE was used in a porcine model to measure intrarenal pressure with and without a ureteral access sheath (UAS) with various sizes and placement locations, irrigation methods, and working channel accessories. LVE pressure accuracy was measured in a bench model. This abstract shows the least-square means from multiway analysis of variances used for analysis. Results: Intrarenal pressures were the highest without a UAS (64 mm Hg), followed by the 11/13 UAS (51 mm Hg) and the 12/14 and 13/15, which were not statistically different (39-40 mm Hg). The pressures were highest with UASs placed at the ureteropelvic junction (61 mm Hg), and lowest if placed in the renal pelvis (24 mm Hg). Irrigation methods showed the highest pressures with syringe (57 mm Hg), while irrigation bags (pressurized at 150-300 mm Hg) produced 43 to 46 mm Hg and 25 mm Hg when applied with 80 cm of gravity. Placing a 200 μm laser fiber reduced pressures from 44 to 41 mm Hg. Finally, the bench model showed that LVE was 96% accurate up to 300 mm Hg. Conclusion: Intrarenal pressure significantly varied based on UAS sizes, placement, and irrigation methods. Accordingly, fURS with LVE is poised to be an invaluable tool for clinical decision-making and future studies of intrarenal pressure.

Predicting Urinary Stone Composition in Single-Use Flexible Ureteroscopic Images with a Convolutional Neural Network.

Background and Objectives: Analysis of urine stone composition is one of the most important factors in urolithiasis treatment. This study investigated whether a convolutional neural network (CNN) can show decent results in predicting urinary stone composition even in single-use flexible ureterorenoscopic (fURS) images with relatively low resolution. Materials and Methods: This study retrospectively used surgical images from fURS lithotripsy performed by a single surgeon between January 2018 and December 2021. The ureterorenoscope was a single-use flexible ureteroscope (LithoVue, Boston Scientific). Among the images taken during surgery, a single image satisfying the inclusion and exclusion criteria was selected for each stone. Cases were divided into two groups according to whether they contained any calcium oxalate (the Calcium group) or none (the Non-calcium group). From 506 total cases, 207 stone surface images were finally included in the study. In the CNN model, the transfer learning method using Resnet-18 as a pre-trained model was used, and only endoscopic digital images and stone classification data were input to achieve minimally supervised learning. Results: There were 175 cases in the Calcium group and 32 in the Non-calcium group. After training and validation, the model was tested using the test set, and the total accuracy was 81.8%. Recall and precision of the test results were 88.2% and 88.2% in the Calcium group and 60.0% and 60.0% in the Non-calcium group, respectively. The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of the model, which represents its classification performance, was 0.82. Conclusions: Single-use flexible ureteroscopes have financial benefits but low vision quality compared with reusable digital flexible ureteroscopes. As far as we know, this is the first artificial intelligence study using single-use fURS images. It is meaningful that the CNN performed well even under these difficult conditions because these results can further expand the possibilities of its use.

Laparoscopic Ureterolithotomy and Single-Use Digital Flexible Ureteroscope For Unilateral Large Ureteral Stone and Small Renal Stone.

BACKGROUND The removal of concurrent ureteral and renal stones within a single procedure has always been a challenge for urological surgeons. The incorporation of single-use digital flexible ureteroscopes into laparoscopic ureterolithotomy procedures has demonstrated effective removal of concurrent stones with a good clearance rate and decreased risk of bleeding and trauma. We report the successful removal of a unilateral upper ureteral stone and a smaller renal stone with this procedure. CASE REPORT A 60-year-old man visited the outpatient clinic with an ultrasonography report that revealed a large proximal ureteral stone with moderate hydronephrosis, accompanied by bilateral renal stones and prostatic hyperplasia. He had been experiencing urinary urgency for a year and was determined to undergo lithotomy. Due to his longstanding history of coronary artery disease and myocardial ischemia, the urologists decided that concurrent stone removal within an operation would be the best treatment. A preoperative computed tomography urogram measured the left ureteral and renal stones to be 2.0×0.8 cm and 0.6 cm, respectively. Both stones were successfully removed by laparoscopic ureterolithotomy using a single-use digital flexible ureteroscope. The patient had an uneventful recovery and remained well 1 month post-operation. CONCLUSIONS The application of single-use digital flexible ureteroscopes for laparoscopic ureterolithotomy has demonstrated safety, efficiency, and cost-effectiveness. The authors believe that it is a safe alternative for the removal of concurrent ureteral and renal stones, especially in patients with multiple comorbidities.

Comparison of single-use flexible ureteroscopes with a reusable ureteroscope for the management of paediatric urolithiasis

To compare the efficacy, side effects, and cost-effectiveness between a single-use digital flexible ureteroscope and a reusable flexible ureteroscope in the treatment of paediatric renal stones. This analytic, case-control, monocentric study included all patients undergoing flexible ureterosopies for stone treatment. Between April 2016 and February 2019, a reusable (Flex-XC®, Karl Storz) flexible ureteroscope was used (control group), whereas a single-use (Uscope®, PUSEN Medical©) flexible ureteroscope was used in all procedures from March 2019 to April 2021. Clinical and procedural outcomes, operative times, complication rates, hospital stay, and costs per procedure were evaluated. Forty-three cases using a reusable flexible ureteroscope and thirty-nine using a single-use flexible ureteroscope were included in the study. Demographic patient characteristics, stone burden, location and composition, preoperative presence of a double-J stent, procedural outcomes, mean length of postoperative hospital stay, and complications (4.6% versus 5%, p=0.81) were comparable between the two groups. Median operative duration for stone removal was 93min (20-170) with reusable versus 81min (55-107) with the single-use scope (p=0.18). Scope failure occurred four times with the reusable scope and in no case with the single-use. The total cost per procedure associated with the use of single-use scopes (798 Euros) was lower than a reusable scope (1483.23 Euros). Single-use flexible ureteroscopes were created to bypass the problems incurred when reusable scopes were damaged and therefore not available for use in surgical procedures. Single-use flexible ureteroscopes are always immediately available and ready to be used, even in urgent cases, as they typically do not require maintenance or sterilization. Compared with their reusable counterparts, single-use flexible ureteroscopes have similar digital performance (270°), image quality and we found no difference in the success and complication rates. Cost analysis of a reusable flexible ureteroscope must consider the purchase price, maintenance and repair costs, and decontamination costs (including handling, detergent, bacterial culture, transportation, and storage costs). In contrast, only purchase price is included in cost analysis for single-use flexible ureteroscopes. Our study suggests that single-use flexible ureteroscopes may be associated with lower costs per procedure than their reusable counterparts. Single-use flexible ureteroscopes are an interesting alternative to their reusable counterparts, particularly in terms of material resource management. Cost analyses conducted using a low volume of cases representative of a paediatric urology division favour the use of single-use ureteroscopes.

Breakage Costs in Flexible Ureteroscopy: Digital vs. Fiberoptic Modalities

To compare the maintenance costs of digital flexible ureteroscopes (DFU) versus fiberoptic flexible ureteroscopes (FFU) to understand the long-term financial impact associated with breakage in a flexible ureteroscopy (f-URS) program. Data for breakage of FFU and DFU at an academic institution from 2019 to 2021 were obtained from our vendor (Karl Storz) and analyzed by month. Correlation test was used to evaluate significant differences in number of procedures, number of breakage events, breakage rates, and repair cost per month. Cumulative analyses were utilized to examine the number of procedures before failure (time to failure - TTF) and repair costs per procedure (RCpP). We performed a total of 2,154 f-URS, including 1,355 with FFU and 799 with DFU (P<.001). Although we found a higher number of breakage events in FFU (n=124) than DFU (n=73) (P<.001), the overall breakage rate was similar, 9.9% vs. 8.8%, respectively (P=0.86). On cumulative analysis, both modalities reached the same TTF plateau (11 cases) after 18 months. After 400 cases, the RCpP for DFU was 1.25 times higher than for FFU (P=0.04). Overall, we found no difference in overall scope breakage rates between DFU and FFU. Although there was no difference in TTF over time, at the beginning DFU displayed considerable higher durability, leading to lower RCpP. Furthermore, DFU's endurance leveled off to FFU over time, resulting in higher RCpP after 400 cases. This finding may be explained by the presence of renewed scopes after repair.

WiScope® single use digital flexible ureteroscope versus reusable flexible ureteroscope for management of renal stones: a prospective randomized study.

To compare the clinical performance and surgical outcomes of the new digital single use flexible ureteroscope (WiScope®) with a reusable digital flexible ureteroscope. Our prospective study includes patients with renal stones less than 2cm who underwent retrograde flexible ureteroscopy and laser lithotripsy. Patients were randomized into two groups: group A included patients who underwent laser lithotripsy using WiScope® Single use digital flexible ureteroscope and group B included patients who underwent laser lithotripsy using reusable flexible ureteroscope. Image quality, deflection, ease of insertion, maneuverability, and overall performance were assessed using either a visual analog or Likert scale. Operative outcomes and complications were collected and analyzed in both groups. A total of 242 patients were included in our study. There were 121 patients in the WiScope® group and 121 patients in reusable ureteroscope group. The WiScope® had higher maneuverability (9.3 ± 0.7 vs. 7.2 ± 0.8, P < 0.001) and less limb fatigue but had lower image quality when compared to reusable digital flexible ureteroscope (7.6 ± 0.9 vs. 9.2 ± 0.6, P < 0.001). There were no differences in operative time, complication rates and rates of relook ureteroscopy. The WiScope® single use flexible ureteroscope has comparable outcomes to the reusable flexible ureteroscope with regard to maneuverability, limb fatigue, and deflection. However, it has a lower image quality.

Single-use flexible ureteroscopes: update and perspective in developing countries. A narrative review.

ABSTRACTFlexible ureteroscopy is a well-established method for treatment of urinary stones but flexible ureteroscopes are expensive and fragile devices with a very limited lifetime. Since 2006 with the advent of digital flexible ureteroscopes a great evolution has occurred. The first single-use flexible ureteroscope was launched in 2011 and new models are coming to the market. The aim of this article is to review the characteristics of these devices, compare their results with the reusable devices and evaluate the cost-benefits of adopting single-use flexible ureteroscopes in developing countries.Materials and Methods:an extensive review of articles listed at PubMed and published between 2000 and 2021 was performed.Results:Single-use flexible ureteroscopes have a shaft with 65 to 68cm length and weight between 119 and 277g. Their deflection goes up to 300 degrees. Their stone-free rates vary between 60 and 95% which is comparable to reusable scopes and operative times ranges from 54 to 86 minutes which are lower when compared to reusable flexible scopes. Their costs vary between 800 and 3180 US dollars.Conclusion:single-use flexible ureteroscopes are lighter and have superior quality of image when compared to fiberoptic ones. There are no definite data showing a higher stone-free rate or less complications with the use of single-use flexible ureteroscopes. Each institution must perform a cost-benefit analysis before making the decision of adopting or not such devices depending on the local circumstances.

MP14-03 DOES THE POSITION AND SIZE OF THE URETERAL ACCESS SHEATH AFFECT RENAL PRESSURES DURING URETEROSCOPY? INTRARENAL PRESSURE MEASUREMENT USING A CONCEPT SINGLE-USE DIGITAL FLEXIBLE URETEROSCOPE

You have accessJournal of UrologyCME1 May 2022MP14-03 DOES THE POSITION AND SIZE OF THE URETERAL ACCESS SHEATH AFFECT RENAL PRESSURES DURING URETEROSCOPY? INTRARENAL PRESSURE MEASUREMENT USING A CONCEPT SINGLE-USE DIGITAL FLEXIBLE URETEROSCOPE Ben H. Chew, Nabil Shalabi, K.F. Victor Wong, Roman Herout, Alina Reicherz, and Naeem Bhojani Ben H. ChewBen H. Chew More articles by this author , Nabil ShalabiNabil Shalabi More articles by this author , K.F. Victor WongK.F. Victor Wong More articles by this author , Roman HeroutRoman Herout More articles by this author , Alina ReicherzAlina Reicherz More articles by this author , and Naeem BhojaniNaeem Bhojani More articles by this author View All Author Informationhttps://doi.org/10.1097/JU.0000000000002543.03AboutPDF ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload CitationsTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints ShareFacebookLinked InTwitterEmail Abstract INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVE: Ureteral access sheaths (UAS) facilitate ureteroscopy and one reported benefit is reduced intrarenal pressure. We sought to determine if the position of the UAS made a difference in renal pressure utilizing a concept pressure-sensing ureteroscope. We also sought to determine if different UAS sizes could impact renal pressure. METHODS: A concept single use digital flexible ureteroscope with pressure monitoring technology (Boston Scientific, USA, concept device/technology, not available for sale) was utilized in this study. Utilizing a live-anesthetized porcine model, pressure was verified by measuring pressure through a 5Fr ureteral catheter (via monitor HP78354A as a reference) compared to readings from the concept ureteroscope. Next, an anesthetized porcine model was tested with different sized ureteral access sheaths (UASs) (11/13, 12/14, and 13/15 Fr) in 3 different locations within the urinary system: 1. in the renal pelvis, 2. below the ureteropelvic junction and 3. in the distal ureter. A pressurized bag at 150mmHg was used to deliver irrigation. Pressure measurements were taken with each parameter using the concept ureteroscope after the renal collecting system had reached a steady state. RESULTS: Intra-renal pressure readings from the concept ureteroscope strongly corelated with the reference device (p=0.972). The lowest pressures occurred with the UAS in the renal pelvis for the 2 largest UAS sizes. If the UAS is below the UPJ, pressure significantly increased in the 11/13 and 12/14 UASs. Only the 13/15 reduced pressure when below the UPJ. None of the UASs in the distal ureter reduced pressure significantly from control. The 12/14 UAS in the renal pelvis had statistically lower pressure than control (p=0.001) and the 11/13 (p<0.0001), but was not as low as the 13/15 (p=0.033). CONCLUSIONS: Overall, the largest UAS (13/15Fr) offered the lowest pressure in most positions. Placing the UAS in the distal ureter did not significantly reduce intrarenal pressure with any UAS. This data suggests to ideally use a >12/14Fr sized UAS in the renal pelvis to obtain the least pressure reduction during ureteroscopy. Further studies are needed to evaluate the clinical significance and sequelae of intra-renal pressure and to determine safe levels. Source of Funding: This work was supported by Boston Scientific Inc © 2022 by American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc.FiguresReferencesRelatedDetails Volume 207Issue Supplement 5May 2022Page: e231 Advertisement Copyright & Permissions© 2022 by American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc.MetricsAuthor Information Ben H. Chew More articles by this author Nabil Shalabi More articles by this author K.F. Victor Wong More articles by this author Roman Herout More articles by this author Alina Reicherz More articles by this author Naeem Bhojani More articles by this author Expand All Advertisement PDF DownloadLoading ...

Single-Use vs. Reusable Digital Flexible Ureteroscope to Treat Upper Urinary Calculi: A Propensity-Score Matching Analysis.

Objective: The purpose of this research was to compare the treatment outcomes and costs of a single-use and reusable digital flexible ureteroscope for upper urinary calculi.Methods: Four hundred forty patients with reusable digital flexible ureteroscope and 151 patients with single-use flexible digital ureteroscope were included in this study. Through exclusion and inclusion criteria and 1:1 propensity-score matching analysis based on baseline characteristics, ultimately, 238 patients (119:119) were compared in terms of treatment outcomes. The cost analysis was based on the costs of purchase, repair, and reprocessing divided by the number of all procedures in each group (450 procedures with reusable digital flexible ureteroscope and 160 procedures with single-use digital flexible ureteroscope).Results: There was no statistical significance in mean operation time (P = 0.666). The single-use digital flexible ureteroscope group has a shorter mean length of hospital stay than the reusable digital flexible ureteroscope group (P = 0.026). And the two groups have a similar incidence of postoperative complications (P = 0.678). No significant difference was observed in the final stone-free rate (P = 0.599) and the probability of secondary lithotripsy (P = 0.811) between the two groups. After 275 procedures, the total costs of a single-use flexible ureteroscope would exceed the reusable flexible ureteroscope.Conclusion: Our data demonstrated that the single-use digital flexible ureteroscope is an alternative to reusable digital flexible ureteroscopy in terms of surgical efficacy and safety for upper urinary calculi. In terms of the economics of the two types of equipment, institutions should consider their financial situation, the number of FURS procedures, the volume of the patient's calculus, surgeon experience, and local dealerships' annual maintenance contract when making the choice.

The usefulness and ergonomics of a new robotic system for flexible ureteroscopy and laser lithotripsy for treating renal stones.

To investigate the usefulness and ergonomics of a newly developed robotic system for flexible ureteroscopy (easyUretero). During in vitro testing, six participants performed renal stone removal four times in an artificial kidney-ureter-bladder model. Each participant manipulated a single-use digital flexible ureteroscope (LithoVue) with their hands and the robotic system, sequentially. We compared the task completion times of each participant. The ergonomics of and operational satisfaction with each procedure were assessed by questionnaires. In vivo tests evaluated the operability and safety of the robotic system in two live female pigs. We checked that all the steps of flexible lithotomy for renal stones could be completed individually. The task completion time with the robotic system during in vitro testing was significantly longer than with manual ureteroscopy regardless of the operator's competence level (expert professors: 282.6±92.4 seconds vs. 73.6±43.3 seconds, p<0.001; fellows: 247.5±57.7 seconds vs. 95.8±43.7 seconds, p<0.001; residents: 281.3±111.0 seconds vs. 188.6±138.6 seconds, p<0.001). The residents took more time to remove the upper and mid caliceal stones with the robotic system. The ergonomic evaluation was better for the robotic system, but operational satisfaction was lower, and there was no statistical difference among the groups. In vivo tests showed that all the steps of robotic flexible ureteroscopy could be completed without difficulty. No safety issues were encountered during the procedure. The robotic system (easyUretero) was ergonomic and safe for flexible ureteroscopy and laser lithotripsy for renal stones.

Comparison of a single-use, digital flexible ureteroscope with a reusable, fiberoptic ureteroscope for management of patients with urolithiasis.

Ureteroscopy is one of the commonest procedures performed to manage urolithiasis. Flexible ureteroscopy has been traditionally based on reusable, fiber-optic ureteroscopes. Technology advancements permitted the development of single-use scopes with digital image. The aim of this study is to compare efficacy and safety between a reusable, fiberoptic ureteroscope with a single-use, digital scope. We collected data based on chart review from a prospectively collected database on a tertiary, high-volume hospital in Greece. Baseline, perioperative and postoperative data were gathered and analyzed. Chi-square and Fisher's exact test was used to compare qualitative data and unpaired t-test for continuous data, with a statistical significance set at a = 0.05. 40 patients underwent flexible ureteroscopy with a single- use digital scope, while 37 with the reusable scope. The two groups were matched regarding baseline characteristics and stone-related parameters. After data analysis, a shorter operative time in favor of single-use flexible ureteroscope was detected (45 vs 65 min, p = 0.001), while safety was also in favor of this type of scope with a significantly higher immediate stonefree rate (70% vs 43%, p = 0.005). Overall complications did not differ between the two groups, although a lower sepsis rate was detected in patients treated with single-use scope. Our findings indicate that single-use, digital ureteroscopes are a viable alternative for flexible ureteroscopy and management of urolithiasis, especially in centers with deficient facilities for sterilization and ensured funds for more expensive reusable scopes.

PD26-07 IMAGE DISTORTION DURING FLEXIBLE URETEROSCOPY: A LABORATORY MODEL COMPARING SUPER PULSE THULIUM FIBER (SPTF) LASER VS HIGH POWER HO:YAG LASER

You have accessJournal of UrologyStone Disease: Surgical Therapy III (PD26)1 Sep 2021PD26-07 IMAGE DISTORTION DURING FLEXIBLE URETEROSCOPY: A LABORATORY MODEL COMPARING SUPER PULSE THULIUM FIBER (SPTF) LASER VS HIGH POWER HO:YAG LASER Caleb S Miller, Bristol B Whiles, David A Duchene, Donald A Neff, and Wilson R Molina Caleb S MillerCaleb S Miller More articles by this author , Bristol B WhilesBristol B Whiles More articles by this author , David A DucheneDavid A Duchene More articles by this author , Donald A NeffDonald A Neff More articles by this author , and Wilson R MolinaWilson R Molina More articles by this author View All Author Informationhttps://doi.org/10.1097/JU.0000000000002019.07AboutPDF ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload CitationsTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints ShareFacebookLinked InTwitterEmail Abstract INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVE: Digital ureteroscopes employ “chip on the tip” technology which allows significant improvement in image resolution. However, image distortion often occurs during laser lithotripsy due to acoustic wave production. We sought to compare the Super Pulse Thulium Fiber (SPTF) laser with the high power Holmium (Ho:YAG) laser in terms of image distortion using variable laser power settings and laser fiber tip distance from the scope’s tip. METHODS: Utilizing a silicone renal model fitted with a 12/14F access sheath, we developed a laboratory model to simulate ureteroscopy. The LithoVue (Boston Scientific), disposable digital flexible ureteroscope was used with 200 micron laser fibers for both the SPTF (Soltive-Olympus) and High power Ho:YAG laser (P120-Lumenis). At defined laser parameters (10, 20, 30, and 40W; short pulse) the laser fiber was slowly retracted toward the tip of the scope during laser activation. Image distortion was identified, and distance from the laser tip to the scope tip was determined. Data from the two lasers were compared utilizing a paired t-test. RESULTS: Image distortion occurred at greater distance with the Ho:YAG compared to SPTF at all laser settings (Table 1). Additionally, higher power (W) was associated with image distortion occurring further from the tip of the scope (p<0.01 for Ho:YAG; p=0.02 for SPFT). At the same power (W) with either 1J or 0.5J, there was no difference in distance for image distortion for the Ho:YAG, but distortion occurred differently with the SPTF (20 and 40W; p<0.01 and p=0.02, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Increased total power as well as decreased distance between the scope and laser fiber tip results in image distortion during flexible ureteroscopy. Image distortion occurs at a greater distance with the Ho:YAG laser than with SPTF fibers at the same laser settings. SPTF seems to have a better safety profile in terms image distortion and potential scope damage. Further evaluation utilizing Ho:YAG on modulated pulse mode is warranted. Source of Funding: None © 2021 by American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc.FiguresReferencesRelatedDetails Volume 206Issue Supplement 3September 2021Page: e440-e440 Advertisement Copyright & Permissions© 2021 by American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc.MetricsAuthor Information Caleb S Miller More articles by this author Bristol B Whiles More articles by this author David A Duchene More articles by this author Donald A Neff More articles by this author Wilson R Molina More articles by this author Expand All Advertisement Loading ...

Single-Use Digital Flexible Ureteroscopes as a Safe and Effective Choice for the Treatment of Lower Pole Renal Stones: Secondary Analysis of a Randomized-Controlled Trial.

Objective: To compare the efficacy and safety of a single-use digital flexible ureteroscope (FURS) and a reusable FURS for the treatment of lower pole stones (LPS) smaller than 20 mm. Patients and Methods: We analyzed the data of 49 patients with LPS from our previous multicenter, randomized, open-label clinical trial in four hospitals in China. All patients underwent FURS for LPS with a single-use FURS ZebraScope™ (trial group) or a reusable FURS URF-V (control group). The efficacy endpoints assessed were the 1-month postsurgical stone-free rate (SFR), operative time, length of postoperative hospital stay, and mean reduction in hemoglobin level. The safety outcomes assessed were the presence of adverse events (AEs), severe AEs (SAEs), and postoperative complications. Results: The demographic and preoperative parameters were comparable between the two groups. The 1-month SFR was 84.00% for the ZebraScope group and 58.33% for the reusable flexible ureteroscope (URF-V) group (p < 0.05). There was no difference between the two groups in the operative time (p = 0.665), length of hospital stay (p = 0.308), presence of postoperative complications (p = 0.307), presence of AEs (p = 0.483), and the presence of SAEs (p = 0.141). Conclusions: This study demonstrates that single-use digital FURS is a safe and effective option and can offer higher SFR than the reusable FURS in the treatment of LPS smaller than 20 mm. We recommend single-use digital FURS as an alternative to reusable FURS for the treatment of LPS. The Clinical Trial Registration number: ChiCTR1900021615.

Durability of Digital Flexible Ureteroscope in University Hospital and Ambulatory Surgical Center: Is It Time to Rethink?

Introduction and Objectives: Published literature on damages to a digital flexible ureteroscope (DFU) examines a limited number of ureteroscopes and shows wide variation in its durability. The aim of this study was to compare the primary damage location, causes of DFU damages, and the durability of Karl Storz Flex-Xc digital ureteroscope between University Hospital (UH) and Ambulatory Care Surgery Center (ASC). We also evaluated the available literature on the durability of DFU. Methods: Each damaged DFU prospectively underwent a manufacturer's evaluation to determine the reason for return and primary site of damage. Hospital data on the number of ureteroscopic procedures and damaged DFUs over 3 years were retrospectively reviewed. The possible reason for the damage was classified as either intraoperative or between the procedures. The durability of DFUs, type, and cause of damage were compared between the UH and nonteaching ASC. A chi-square test was utilized for categorical variables. When cell frequencies were <5, Fisher's exact test was used. Results: During the study period, 1211 ureteroscopies were performed and 143 ureteroscopes were returned to the manufacturer. The mean number of uses was 7.45 at the UH and 16.5 at the ASC. The location and cause of damage were similar at both locations. The most common locations of primary damage were at the angle cover (70.6%) and instrument channel (19.2%). Most damage occurred during the handling of the ureteroscopes between surgical procedures (78%). On review of the literature, we found that DFUs were 6 times more durable in a nonteaching hospital. Conclusions: The DFU was more than two times as durable in the ASC as in the UH. Most incidents occurred during handling between surgical procedures. Future research is needed to examine the impact of training and certification of support staff on durability of DFUs.

Single-use ureteroscopes in ectopic pelvic kidney stones.

We analyzed the results of single-use flexible ureteroscopy (su-fURS) with the holmium laser in treating renal stones associated with ectopic pelvic kidney (EPK). The study retrospectively analyzed data of 11 patients diagnosed with EPK and stone disease who underwent su-fURS between May 2017 and November 2019. The analyzed surgical data included the mean operation time, stone-free and complication rates, as well as hospitalization period. Disposable digital flexible ureteroscopes were exclusively used. The mean age was 55, with a 1.2:1 male to female ratio. The mean stone burden was 30±9 mm (ranging from 17 to 49 mm). The mean calculi digitized surface area (DSA) was 299±56 mm2 (ranging from 170 to 597 mm2). A ureteral access sheath was used in all 11 patients, and holmium laser lithotripsy was performed (dusting mode parameters: low energy – 0.5J, high frequency – 50 Hz, long pulse; pop-corn mode: high energy >1 J, medium frequency– 10–50 Hz, long pulse; fragmenting mode: high energy >1 J, low frequency <10 Hz, short pulse). The average operative time was 78±19 minutes (ranging from 68 to 144 minutes). The stone-free status (residual fragments <3 mm) after one session was 60.1%, 84.1% after the second session, and 94.4% after the third session. The hospitalization period was 29 hours (ranging from 17 to 39 hours). The overall complications rate (according to the Clavien-Dindo system) was 19.7%. Therefore, su-fURS represents an effective therapeutic approach characterized by a remarkably high stone-free rate and few complications in EPK-associated calculi.

Simultaneous bilateral endoscopic surgery in a pediatric patient: Description of a NOVEL technique

Simultaneous bilateral endoscopic surgery (SBES) is the performance of a percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL) on one side and a retrograde intrarenal surgery (RIRS) on the other kidney simultaneously. Our aim is to report through a video the surgical technique and the step-by-step details of a SBES performed in a pediatric patient. A 12-year-old male patient with bilateral upper tract urolithiasis. Supine PCNL is performed in Galdakao-modified Valdivia position. Ureteroscopic surgeon performs retrograde pyelography on PCNL kidney. Percutaneous access under fluoroscopic guidance trough the lower calyx and dilated with Amplatz dilators to 17.5 Fr. Storz® 17.5 MIP Nephroscope is introduced and fragmentation with pneumatic lithotripter starts. On the other kidney, after introduction of ureteral sheet 12/14 Fr and digital flexible ureteroscope Flex Xc ® 9.5Fr, pulverization of the stone starts with Laser Holmium YAG (Oddysey®). Surgeons work simultaneously and share fluoro-scopic c-arm. SBES can be reproduced in children. Proper planification and preparation of the involved team and OR set up are essential. Further prospective randomized studies are needed to establish safety and efficacy of SBES in pediatric patients.