Is there a difference in outcomes between digital and fiberoptic flexible ureterorenoscopy procedures?

Journal of Endourology

Volumn 24, Issue 12, 2010, Pages 1929-1934

  Binbay, Murat ^a   Yuruk, Emrah ^a   Akman, Tolga ^a   Ozgor, Faruk ^a   Seyrek, Mahir ^a   Ozkuvanci, Unsal ^a   Berberoglu, Yalcin ^a   Muslumanoglu, Ahmet Yaser ^a  

^a HASEKI EDUCATION AND RESEARCH HOSPITAL   (Turkey)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; COST; DIGITAL FLEXIBLE URETERORENOSCOPY; FIBEROPTIC FLEXIBLE URETERORENOSCOPY; FIBEROSCOPE; HUMAN; INTERMETHOD COMPARISON; KIDNEY SURGERY; LASER LITHOTRIPSY; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; NEPHROLITHIASIS; OPERATION DURATION; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT; POSTOPERATIVE PERIOD; PREOPERATIVE EVALUATION; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RETROSPECTIVE STUDY; URETEROSCOPY;

ADOLESCENT; ADULT; AGED; FEMALE; FIBER OPTIC TECHNOLOGY; HUMANS; KIDNEY; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; PLIABILITY; POSTOPERATIVE CARE; THERAPEUTIC IRRIGATION; TREATMENT OUTCOME; URETER; URETEROSCOPES; URETEROSCOPY; YOUNG ADULT;

EID: 78650275752     PISSN: 08927790     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1089/end.2010.0211     Document Type: Article

References (17)

1. Takayasu H, Aso Y, Takagi T, Go T. Clinical application of fiber-optic pyeloureteroscope. Urol Int 1971;26:97-104.
2. Traxer O, Dubosq F, Jamali K, et al. New-generation flexible ureterorenoscopes are more durable than previous ones. Urology 2006;68:276-280.
3. Monga M, Best S, Venkatesh R, et al. Durability of flexible ureteroscopes. A randomized, prospective study. J Urol 2006;176:137-141.
4. Mitchell S, Havranek E, Patel A. First digital flexible ur-eterorenoscope: Initial experience. J Endourol 2008;22:47-50.
5. Humphreys M, Miller NL, Williams JC Jr, et al. A new world revealed: Early experience with digital ureteroscopy. J Urol 2008;179:970-975.
6. Tiselius HG, Ackermann D, Alken P, et al. Guidelines on Urolithiasis. Arnheim, The Netherlands: European Associa-tion of Urology, 2007.
7. Wolf JS Jr, Bennett CJ, Dmochowski RR, et al. Best practice policy statement on urologic surgery antimicrobial prophy-laxis. J Urol 2008;179:1379-1390.
8. Paffen ML, Keizer JG, de Winter GV, et al. A comparison of physical properties of four new generation flexible uretero-scopes: (De)flection, flow properties, torsion stiffness, and optical characteristics. J Endourol 2008;22:2227-2234.
9. Multescu R, Geavlete B, Georgescu D, Geavlete P. Conven-tional fiberoptic flexible ureteroscope versus fourth genera-tion digital flexible ureteroscope: A critical comparison. J Endourol 2010:24:17-21.
10. Grasso M, Ficazzola M. Retrograde ureteropyeloscopy for lower pole caliceal calculi. J Urol1999;162:1904-1908.
11. Geavlete P, Multescu R, Geavlete B. Influence of pyelocali-ceal anatomy on the success of flexible ureteroscopic ap-proach. J Endourol 2008;22:2235-2239.
12. Ankem MK, Lowry PS, Slovick RW, et al. Clinical utility of dual active deflection flexible ureteroscope during upper tract ureteropyeloscopy. Urology 2004;64:430-434.
13. Schwalb DM, Eshghi M, Davidian M, Franco I. Morpholo-gical and physiological changes in the urinary tract associ-ated with ureteral dilation and ureteropyeloscopy: An experimental study. J Urol 1993;149:1576-1585.
14. Jung H, Norby B, Frimodt-Moller PC, Osther PJ. En-doluminal isoproterenol irrigation decreases renal pelvic pressure during flexible ureterorenoscopy: A clinical randomized, controlled study. Eur Urol 2008;54:1404-1413.
15. Auge BK, Pietrow PK, Lallas CD, et al. Ureteral access sheath provides protection against elevated renal pressures during routine flexible ureteroscopic stone manipulation. J Endourol 2004;18:33-36.
16. Monga M, Weiland D, Pedro RN, et al. Intrarenal manipu-lation of flexible ureteroscopes: A comparative study. BJU Int 2007;100:157-159.
17. Afane JS, Olweny EO, Bercowsky E, et al. Flexible uretero-scopes: A single center evaluation of the durability and function of the new endoscopes smaller than 9Fr. J Urol 2000;164:1164-1168.