Evidence-based instrumentation for flexible ureteroscopy: A review

Journal of Endourology

Volumn 22, Issue 7, 2008, Pages 1423-1426

  Holden, Timothy ^a   Pedro, Renato N ^a   Hendlin, Kari ^a   Durfee, William ^b   Monga, Manoj ^a,c  

^a UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA   (United States)

^b University of Minnesota   (United States)

^c NONE   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

DEVICE; INSTRUMENTATION; INTERMETHOD COMPARISON; LITHOTRIPSY; PRIORITY JOURNAL; REVIEW; URETER; URETEROSCOPE; URETEROSCOPY; URINARY TRACT;

BALLOON DILATATION; EVIDENCE-BASED MEDICINE; HUMANS; PLIABILITY; URETEROSCOPES; URETEROSCOPY; URINARY CALCULI;

EID: 50649114365     PISSN: 08927790     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1089/end.2007.0327     Document Type: Review

References (33)

1. Clayman M, Uribe CA, Eichel L, Gordon Z, McDougall EM, Clayman RV. Comparison of guide wires in urology. Which, when and why? J Urol 2004;171:2146-2150.
2. Kourambas J, Byme RR, Preminger GM. Does a ureteral access sheath facilitate ureteroscopy? J Urol 2001;165:789-793.
3. Rehman J, Monga M, Landman J, et al. Characterization of intrapelvic pressure during ureteropyeloscopy with ureteral access sheaths. Urology 2003;61:713-718.
4. Monga M, Best S, Venkatesh R, Ames C, Lieber D, Vanlangendock R, Landman J. Prospective randomized comparison of 2 ureteral access sheaths during flexible retrograde ureteroscopy. J Urol 2004;172:572-573.
5. Monga M, Gawlik A, Durfee W. Systematic evaluation of ureteral access sheaths. Urology 2004;63:834-836.
6. Beiko DT, Watterson JD. From bench to ureteroscopy: A comparison of ureteral access sheath physical properties. J Endourol 2005;19:MP23-14.
7. Pedro RN, Hendlin K, Durfee W, Monga M. Physical characteristics of next-generation ureteral access sheaths: Buckling and kinking. AUA Abst 2007;971.
8. Preminger G, Lindler T, Lamberton G, Auge B, Baldwin D, Albala D. A novel radial-dilating balloon-expandable ureteral access sheath: The initial human experience. AUA Abst 2007;1448.
9. Hendlin K, Lund B, Dockendorf K, Ramani R, Monga M. Radial dilation of ureteral balloons: A comparative in vitro analysis. J Endourol 2005;19:575-578.
10. Hudson RG, Conlin M, Bagley D. Ureteric access with flexible ureteroscopes: Effect of the size of the ureteroscope. BJU Int 2005;95:1043-1044.
11. Abdelshehid C, Ahlering M, Chou D, et al. Comparison of flexible ureteroscopes: Deflection, irrigant flow and optical characteristics. J Urol 2005;173:2017-2021.
12. Monga M, Weiland D, Pedro RN, Lynch AC, Anderson K. Intrarenal manipulation of flexible ureteroscopes: A comparative study. BJU Int 2007;100:157-159.
13. Monga M, Best S, Venkatesh R, et al. Durability of flexible ureteroscopes: A randomized, prospective study. J Urol 2006;176:137-141.
14. Carey RI, Gomez CS, Maurici G, Lynne CM, Leveillee RJ, Bird VG. Frequency of ureteroscope damage seen at a tertiary care center. J Urol 2006;176:607-610.
15. Traxer O, Thibault F, Beley S, Sebe P, Gattegno B. Evaluation of optical properties of the new digital flexible ureterorenoscope by comparison with 3 standard flexible ureterorenoscopes. EAU Abst 2007;983.
16. Chan KF, Vassar GJ, Pfefer TJ, Teichman JM, Glickman RD, Weintraub ST, Welch AJ. Holmium:YAG laser lithotripsy: A dominant photothermal ablative mechanism with chemical decomposition of urinary calculi. Lasers Surg Med 1999;25:22-37.
17. Teichman JM, Vassar GJ, Bishoff JT, Bellman GC. Holmium: YAG lithotripsy yields smaller fragments than lithoclast, pulsed dye laser or electrohydraulic lithotripsy. J Urol 1998;159:17-23.
18. Teichman JM, Rao RD, Rogenes VJ, Harris JM. Ureteroscopic management of ureteral calculi: Electrohyrdaulic versus holmium:YAG lithotripsy. J Urol 1997;158:1357-1361.
19. Maheshwari PN, Trivedi N, Kaushik S, et al. Ureteroscopic management of upper ureteric calculi: Holmium lithotripsy vs. pneumatic lithotripsy (abstract). J Endourol 2003;17:M25-14.
20. Vassar GJ, Teichman JM, Glickman RD. Holmium:YAG lithotripsy efficiency varies with energy density. J Urol 1998;160:471-476.
21. Knudsen BE, Glickman RD, Stallman KJ, Maswadi S, Chew BH, Beiko DT, Denstedt JD, Teichman JM. Performance and safety of holmium:YAG laser optical fibers. J Endourol 2005;19):1092-1097.
22. Bagley D, Ramsay K, Zeltser I. An update on ureteroscopic instrumentation for the treatment of urolithiasis. Curr Opin Urol 2004;14:99-106.
23. Chenven E, Bagley D. In vitro retrieval and releasing capabilities of stone basket designs. J Endourol 2002;16(Suppl 1):A11.
24. Honey RJ. Assessment of a new tipless nitinol stone basket and comparison with an existing flat-wire basket. J Endourol 1998;12:529-531.
25. Monga M, Hendlin K, Lee C, Anderson JK. Systematic evaluation of stone basket dimensions. Urology 2004;63:1042-1044.
26. Lukasewycz S, Skenazy J, Hoffman N, Kuskowski M, Hendlin K, Monga M. Comparison of nitinol tipless stone baskets in an in vitro caliceal model. J Urol 2004;172:562-564.
27. Lukasewycz S, Hoffman N, Botnaru A, Deka PM, Monga M. Comparison of tipless and helical baskets in an in vitro ureteral model. Urology 2004;64:435-438.
28. Hendlin K, Lee C, Anderson JK, Monga M. Radial dilation force of tipless and helical stone baskets. J Endourol 2004;18:946-947.
29. Canales BK, Ramani A, Monga M. A new spin on the entrapped ureteral calculus. J Endourol 2006;20:460-461.
30. Zeltser IS, Bagley DH. Basket design as a factor in retention and release of calculi in vitro. J Endourol. 2007;21:337-342.
31. Dretler SP. The stone cone: A new generation of basketry. J Urol 2001;165:1593-1596.
32. Desai MR, Patel SB, Desai MM, Kukreja R, Sabnis RB, Desai RM, Patel SH. The Dretler stone cone: a device to prevent ureteral stone migration - the initial clinical experience. J Urol 2002;167:1985-1988.
33. Holley PG, Sharma SK, Perry KT, Turk TM. Assessment of novel ureteral occlusion device and comparison with stone cone in prevention of stone fragment migration during lithotripsy. J Endourol 2005;19:200-203.