Journals / Journal of Urological Surgery / 2020 / Cilt: 7 - Sayı: 2

An Overview of the Advantages of Digital Flexible Ureteroscopes. A Review by Young Academic Urologists Endourology and Urolithiasis Working Party of the European Association of Urology

Dijital Fleksibl Üreteroskopların Avantajları

Pages
76–82
Publication Date
2022-10-18
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

However, due to excellent maneuverability advantages in complicated anatomies, smaller sizes and lower costs,endourologists should always try to keep a FO FU ready for action in their operating rooms.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Endoscopic technology is the cream of the crop for the urinary tract endoscopic procedures in our modern era of surgery.
📊
Key Findings & Data:The new generation D-FUs also have excellent maneuverability, similar to FO ureteroscopes, but they are larger in size, whichin turn can affect morbidity due to increased post-operative stenting and increased complication risk with larger ureteral access sheat and theycome with higher costs.Many endourologists may prefer to use these high-tech, sophisticated devices as first line for their flexible ureteroscopy procedures as theyprovide excellent surgical outcomes.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:However, due to excellent maneuverability advantages in complicated anatomies, smaller sizes and lower costs,endourologists should always try to keep a FO FU ready for action in their operating rooms.
🔬Design:Review & Systematic Survey
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Abstract

Endoscopic technology is the cream of the crop for the urinary tract endoscopic procedures in our modern era of surgery. The idea of this reviewwas to evaluate different characteristics of fiberoptic (FO), reusable digital (D) and disposable digital flexible ureteroscopes (FUs) and have anunderstanding of different comparisons in-between. The topics covered in this review comprise the visual characteristics, weight, costs, durability,and maneuverability aspects and size characteristics of different endoscopes. Digital FUs provide various advantages especially in terms of visualquality and durability. The new generation D-FUs also have excellent maneuverability, similar to FO ureteroscopes, but they are larger in size, whichin turn can affect morbidity due to increased post-operative stenting and increased complication risk with larger ureteral access sheat and theycome with higher costs.Many endourologists may prefer to use these high-tech, sophisticated devices as first line for their flexible ureteroscopy procedures as theyprovide excellent surgical outcomes. However, due to excellent maneuverability advantages in complicated anatomies, smaller sizes and lower costs,endourologists should always try to keep a FO FU ready for action in their operating rooms.

Özet

Endoskopik teknoloji, modern cerrahi çağımızda üriner sistem endoskopik prosedürleri için en ileri teknolojik girişimleri mümkün kılmaktadır. Bu derleme ile, fiberoptik (FO), tekrar kullanılabilir / “disposable” dijital (D) ve tek kullanımlık dijital esnek / “fleksibl” üreteroskopların (FU) farklı özelliklerini değerlendirmek ve aralarındaki farklı karşılaştırmaları anlamaktır. Bu derlemede ele alınan konular, farklı endoskopların görsel özelliklerini, ağırlığını, maliyetlerini, dayanıklılığını, manevra kabiliyetlerini ve boyut özelliklerini içermektedir. Dijital esnek üreteroskoplar, özellikle görsel kalite ve dayanıklılık açısından çeşitli avantajlar sağlar. Yeni nesil D-FU’lar aynı zamanda fiberoptik üreteroskoplara benzer şekilde mükemmel manevra kabiliyetine sahiptir, ancak daha büyük boyuttadırlar, bu da daha büyük üreteral giriş kılıfları ile artan post-operatif stentleme ve artan komplikasyon riski nedeniyle morbiditeyi etkileyebilir ve daha yüksek maliyetlere sebep olabilir. Birçok endoürolog, “fleksibl” üreteroskopi ameliyatları için esnek üreteroskopi prosedürleri için bu yüksek teknoloji ürünü, sofistike cihazları kullanmayı tercih edebilir. Bununla birlikte, karmaşık anatomilerde mükemmel manevra kabiliyeti avantajları, daha küçük boyutlar ve daha düşük maliyetler nedeniyle, endoürologlar her zaman fiberoptik esnek bir üreteroskopu ameliyat odalarında çalışmaya hazır tutmalıdır.

🔖

Cite This Article

TANIDIR, Y., TALSO, M., ŞENER, T. E., SOMANI, B., PIETROPAOLO, A. (2022). An Overview of the Advantages of Digital Flexible Ureteroscopes. A Review by Young Academic Urologists Endourology and Urolithiasis Working Party of the European Association of Urology. Journal of Urological Surgery, Cilt: 7 - Sayı: 2, 76–82. https://ajindex.com/articles/568642

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (11)

  1. European Association of U. History of Urology, http://history.uroweb.org. The EAU History Office. Herr HW. Civiale, stones and statistics: the dawn of evidence-based medicine. BJU international 2009;104:300-302. Marshall VF. Fiber Optics in Urology. J Urol 1964;91:110-114.
  2. Takayasu H, Aso Y, Takagi T, Go T. Clinical application of fiber-optic pyeloureteroscope. Urol Int 1971;26:97-104. Bagley DH. Flexible ureteropyeloscopy with modular, “disposable” endoscope. Urology 1987;29:296-300.
  3. Mitchell S, Havranek E, Patel A. First digital flexible ureterorenoscope: initial experience. J Endourol 2008;22:47-50.
  4. Andonian S, Okeke Z, Smith AD. Digital ureteroscopy: the next step. J Endourol 2008;22:603-606.
  5. Al-Qahtani SM, Geavlete B, Geavlette BP, de Medina SG, Traxer OP. The new Olympus digital flexible ureteroscope (URF-V): Initial experience. Urol Ann 2011;3:133-137.
  6. Multescu R, Geavlete B, Geavlete P. A new era: performance and limitations of the latest models of flexible ureteroscopes. Urology 2013;82:1236-1239.
  7. Talso M, Proietti S, Emiliani E, Gallioli A, Dragos L, Orosa A, Servian P, Barreiro A, Giusti G, Montanari E, Somani B, Traxer O. Comparison of Flexible Ureterorenoscope Quality of Vision: An In Vitro Study. J Endourol 2018;32:523-528.
  8. Somani BK, Al-Qahtani SM, de Medina SDG, Traxer O. Outcomes of flexible ureterorenoscopy and laser fragmentation for renal stones: comparison between digital and conventional ureteroscope. Urology 2013;82:1017- 1019. de la Rosette J, Denstedt J, Geavlete P, Keeley F, Matsuda T, Pearle M, Preminger G, Traxer O, CROES URS Study Group. The clinical research office of the endourological society ureteroscopy global study: indications, complications, and outcomes in 11,885 patients. J Endourol 2014;28:131- 139. Proietti S, Somani B, Sofer M, Pietropaolo A, Rosso M, Saitta G, Gaboardi F, Traxer O, Giusti G. The “Body Mass Index” of Flexible Ureteroscopes. J Endourol 2017;31:1090-1095.
  9. Temiz MZ, Colakerol A, Ertas K, Tuken M, Yuruk E. Fiberoptic versus Digital: A Comparison of Durability and Cost Effectiveness of the Two Flexible Ureteroscopes. Urol Int 2019;102:181-186.
  10. Taguchi K, Usawachintachit M, Tzou DT, Sherer BA, Metzler I, Isaacson D, Stoller ML, Chi T. Micro-Costing Analysis Demonstrates Comparable Costs for LithoVue Compared to Reusable Flexible Fiberoptic Ureteroscopes. J Endourol 2018;32:267-273.
  11. Afane JS, Olweny EO, Bercowsky E, Sundaram CP, Dunn MD, Shalhav AL, McDougall EM, Clayman RV. Flexible ureteroscopes: a sing