Urology
Volume 75, Issue 3 , Pages 534-538 , March 2010

Durability of the Next-generation Flexible Fiberoptic Ureteroscopes: A Randomized Prospective Multi-institutional Clinical Trial

  • Bodo Knudsen

      Affiliations

    • Department of Urology, Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio
    • ,
  • Ricardo Miyaoka

      Affiliations

    • Department of Urologic Surgery, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minnesota
    • ,
  • Ketul Shah

      Affiliations

    • Department of Urology, Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio
    • ,
  • Timothy Holden

      Affiliations

    • Department of Urologic Surgery, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minnesota
    • ,
  • Thomas M.T. Turk

      Affiliations

    • Department of Urology, Loyola University Medical Center, Maywood, Illinois
    • ,
  • Renato N. Pedro

      Affiliations

    • Department of Urologic Surgery, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minnesota
    • ,
  • Carly Kriedberg

      Affiliations

    • Department of Urologic Surgery, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minnesota
    • ,
  • Bryan Hinck

      Affiliations

    • Department of Urologic Surgery, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minnesota
    • ,
  • Omar Ortiz-Alvarado

      Affiliations

    • Department of Urologic Surgery, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minnesota
    • ,
  • Manoj Monga

      Affiliations

    • Department of Urologic Surgery, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minnesota
    • Corresponding Author InformationReprint requests: Manoj Monga, M.D., Department of Urologic Surgery, University of Minnesota, 420 Delaware St SE, MMC 394, Minneapolis, MN 55455

Received 15 April 2009 ,Accepted 30 June 2009.

References 

  1. Marshall VF. Fiber optics in urology. J Urol. 1964;91:110–114
  2. Grasso M, Bagley D. Small diameter, actively deflectable flexible ureteropyeloscopy. J Urol. 1998;160:1648–1653
  3. Pietrow PK, Auge BK, Delvecchio FC, et al. Techniques to maximize ureteroscope longevity. Urology. 2002;60:784–788
  4. Landman J, Lee DI, Lee C, et al. Evaluation of overall costs of currently available small flexible ureteroscopes. Urology. 2003;62(2):218–222
  5. Monga M, Best S, Venkatesh R, et al. Durability of flexible ureteroscopes: a randomized, prospective study. J Urol. 2006;176(1):137–141
  6. Traxer O, Dubosq F, Jamali K, et al. New-Generation flexible ureterorenoscopes are more durable than previous ones. Urology. 2006;68:276–281
  7. Monga M, Weiland D, Pedro RN, et al. Intrarenal manipulation of flexible ureteroscopes: a comparative study. BJU Int. 2007;100(1):157–159
  8. Carey RI, Gomez CS, Maurici G, et al. Frequency of ureteroscope damage seen at a tertiary care center. J Urol. 2006;176(2):607–610
  9. Afane JS, Olwenly EO, Bercowsky E, et al. Flexible ureteroscopes: a single center evaluation of the durability and function of the new endoscopes smaller than 9Fr. J Urol. 2000;164:1164–1168
  10. Kourambas J, Byme RR, Preminger GM. Does a ureteral access sheath facilitate ureteroscopy?. J Urol. 2001;165:789–793
  11. Sung JC, Springhart WP, Marguet CG, et al. Location and etiology of flexible and semirigid ureteroscope damage. Urology. 2005;66(5):958–963
  12. Knudsen BE, Glickman RD, Stallman KJ, et al. Performance and safety of holmium: YAG laser optical fibers. J Endourol. 2005;19(9):1092–1097
  13. Bagley DH. Intrarenal access with the flexible ureteropyeloscope: effect of active and passive tip deflection. J Endourol. 1993;7:221–224
  14. Monga M, Dretler SP, Landman J, et al. Maximizing ureteroscope deflection: “play it straight”. Urology. 2002;60:902–905
  15. Abdelshehid C, Ahlering M, Chou D, et al. Comparison of flexible ureteroscopes: deflection, irrigant flow and optical characteristics. J Urol. 2005;173:2017–2021
  16. Paffen ML, Keizer JG, de Winter GV, et al. A comparison of the physical properties of four new generation flexible ureteroscopes: (de)flection, flow properties, torsion stiffness, and optical characteristics. J Endourol. 2008;22(10):2227–2234
  17. Traxer O, Thibault F, Beley S, et al. Evaluation of optical properties of the new digital flexible ureterorenoscope by comparison with 3 standard flexible ureterorenoscopes. EAU. 2007;983;(abstract)
  18. Knudsen B, Ferraro M. Digital video flexible ureteroscopy: digital video flexible ureteroscopy: Gyrus ACMI/Olympus Invisio®Dur®-D twelve month failure and repair experience. J Urol. 2009;181(suppl 4):665;Abstract: 1843

PII: S0090-4295(09)02304-8

doi: 10.1016/j.urology.2009.06.093

Urology
Volume 75, Issue 3 , Pages 534-538 , March 2010

Article Tools