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

Urology

Volumn 75, Issue 3, 2010, Pages 534-538

  Knudsen, Bodo ^a   Miyaoka, Ricardo ^b   Shah, Ketul ^a   Holden, Timothy ^b   Turk, Thomas M T ^c   Pedro, Renato N ^b   Kriedberg, Carly ^b   Hinck, Bryan ^b   Ortiz Alvarado, Omar ^b   Monga, Manoj ^b  

^a OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA   (United States)

^c LOYOLA UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; CLINICAL TRIAL; CONTROLLED CLINICAL TRIAL; CONTROLLED STUDY; COST EFFECTIVENESS ANALYSIS; FIBEROPTIC URETEROSCOPE; HUMAN; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MEDICAL INSTRUMENTATION; NEPHROLITHIASIS; PEROPERATIVE CARE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROSPECTIVE STUDY; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL; URETER STONE; URETEROSCOPE; URETEROSCOPY; VISIBILITY;

EQUIPMENT DESIGN; EQUIPMENT FAILURE; FIBER OPTIC TECHNOLOGY; HUMANS; KIDNEY CALCULI; PROSPECTIVE STUDIES; TIME FACTORS; URETERAL CALCULI; URETEROSCOPES; URETEROSCOPY;

EID: 77649181586     PISSN: 00904295     EISSN: 15279995     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.urology.2009.06.093     Document Type: Article

References (18)

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