Critical Assessment of Single-Use Ureteroscopes in an In Vivo Porcine Model
Introduction and Objectives. In recent years, there has been increasing utilization of single-use ureteroscopes albeit with few studies comparing the performance characteristics between these devices. We compared two commonly utilized single-use ureteroscopes in a porcine model. Methods. A female pi...
| Main Authors: | , , , , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
Hindawi Limited
2020-01-01
|
| Series: | Advances in Urology |
| Online Access: | http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2020/3842680 |
| Summary: | Introduction and Objectives. In recent years, there has been increasing utilization of single-use ureteroscopes albeit with few studies comparing the performance characteristics between these devices. We compared two commonly utilized single-use ureteroscopes in a porcine model. Methods. A female pig was placed under general anesthesia and positioned supine, and retrograde access to the renal collecting system was obtained. The LithoVue (Boston Scientific) and Uscope (Pusen Medical) were evaluated by three experienced surgeons, and each surgeon started with a new scope. The following parameters were compared between each ureteroscope: time for navigation to upper and lower pole calyces with and without implements (1.9 F basket, 200 μm laser fiber, and 365 μm laser fiber for upper only) in the working channel and subjective evaluations of maneuverability, irrigant flow through the scope, lever force, ergonomics, and scope optics. Results. Navigation to the lower pole calyx was significantly faster with LithoVue compared to Uscope when the working channel was empty (24.3 vs. 49.4 seconds, p<0.01) and with a 200 μm fiber (63.6 vs. 94.4 seconds, p=0.04), but not with the 1.9 F basket. Navigation to the upper pole calyx was similar for all categories except faster with LithoVue containing the 365 μm fiber (67.1 vs. 99.7 seconds, p=0.02). Subjective assessments of scope maneuverability to upper and lower pole calyces when the scope was empty and with implements favored LithoVue in all categories, as did assessments of irrigant flow, illumination, image quality, and field of view. Both scopes had similar scores of lever force and ergonomics. Conclusions. In an in vivo porcine model, the type of single-use ureteroscope employed affected the navigation times and subjective assessments of maneuverability and visualization. In all cases, LithoVue provided either equivalent or superior metrics than Uscope. Further clinical studies are necessary to determine the implications of these findings. |
|---|---|
| ISSN: | 1687-6369 1687-6377 |