Digital ureteroscopes: technology update

Gridley, Chad M.; Knudsen, Bodo E.

doi:10.2147/rru.s104229

Cited by 27 publications

(30 citation statements)

References 24 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The modifications to device diameter, flexion, deflection and imaging have made fURS the first‐line treatment for renal stones in some countries . Despite this, the initial purchase cost, maintenance cost, performance degradation and poor durability remain significant issues associated with both fibre optic and digital reusable scope use .…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Single‐use disposable digital flexible ureteroscopes: an ex vivo assessment and cost analysis

et al. 2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Single‐use disposable digital flexible ureteroscopes: an ex vivo assessment and cost analysis

et al. 2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Different kinds of flexible multi-use endoscopes are available on the market: conventional FURS, in which the image is delivered via a fibre bundle, FURS with attached camera system for image acquisition, and novel digital FURS with "chip on the tip" technology 5,6 . During the last few years huge improvements proceeded to image quality, durability, irrigation flow and reduction of the shaft diameter 3,4,7 , and thus evolved the ureteroscopic Ho:YAG laser lithotripsy to a safer and highly efficient method for calculi destruction 2,8 . Actually complications like ureteral perforation or stricture formation could be reduced to 5% and 2%, respectively 9 .…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparative investigation of reusable and single–use flexible endoscopes for urological interventions

Eisel

Strittmatter

Ströbl

et al. 2020

Sci Rep

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In order to evaluate the technical adaptability of a type of disposable endoscope compared to reusable flexible endoscopes, in vitro and in vivo studies were conducted. A disposable digital ureteroscope ("chip on tip") and two reusable endoscopes were investigated with respect to spatial resolution, geometric distortion in air and water the maximum. Additionally, the clinical performance of the disposable device was tested during clinical procedures (n = 20). The disposable endoscope showed an optical resolution of 6.72 lines/mm at 10 mm distance, similar to the other devices. In comparison, the disposable endoscope showed a barrel-shaped image distortion in air of −24.2%, which is in the middle range, but was best under water (−8.6%). The bendability of 297° (275 µm fiber) and 316° (empty channel, 1.5 F basket) and the maximum irrigation (1 m: 58.1 ml/min, 2 m: 91.9 ml/min) were convincing. Clinically the maneuverability was very good in (13/20), good or satisfactory in (7/20). Visibility was evaluated as very good in (11/20), just in (1/20) either satisfactory or sufficient. The consistency of visibility was not affected in (19/20). In all cases there were no adverse events. The technical examination and clinical application of the disposable endoscope are of equal quality compared to reusable devices. Disposable endoscopes can be an alternative to reusable devices, but economic aspects such as reduction of repair costs, sterilization effort and additional waste must be taken into account.

show abstract

“…Moreover, digital ureteroscopes have relatively larger distal tips around of 7.7-8.7F that may restrict access to upper urinary tract. To overcome this issue, the Richard Wolf company (Richard Wolf GmbH, Knittlingen, Germany) has generated 2 recent digital flexible ureterescopes: single channel BOA vision TM and dual channel COBRA vision TM , with smallest tip diameters of 6.6 and 5.2F, respectively [10].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…It also has an integrated laser shifter mechanism to control the movement of laser fiber [9]. Actually, the main innovation with this digital flexible ureterescope is the smallest tip diameter (5.2F) so far [10]. All these technologic innovations are associated with high costs besides the durability concern.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Fiberoptic versus Digital: A Comparison of Durability and Cost Effectiveness of the Two Flexible Ureteroscopes

et al. 2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Aims: We aimed to evaluate the durability and cost effectiveness of the latest digital flexible ureterescope by comparing it with the conventional fiberoptic one. Materials and Methods: Data of patients who underwent retrograde intrarenal surgery between January 2013 and December 2014 were collected. Fiberoptic Flex-X2 or digital Cobra vision flexible ureteroscopes were used for the procedures. The comparison of both ureteroscopes was performed in terms of patient and stone characteristics, operative outcomes, durability, and cost effectiveness. Results: A total of 105 patients were evaluated for the study. The patient and stone characteristics and operative outcomes were similar between the groups. Overall, 54 and 51 procedures were performed using Flex-X2 and Cobra vision, respectively, before they were sent for renovation. The purchase prices were USD 29,500 for Flex-X2 and USD 58,000 for Cobra vision. Costs of per case were determined as USD 549.29 for Flex-X2 and as USD 1,137.25 for Cobra vision. Per minute working time costs were USD 772.04 and 1,471.33 for Flex-X2 and Cobra vision respectively. Conclusions: The digital Cobra vision has high costs without any difference in durability as compared to Flex-X2. Moreover, it has no benefit over Flex-X2 in terms of surgical outcomes.

show abstract

Digital ureteroscopes: technology update

Cited by 27 publications

References 24 publications

Single‐use disposable digital flexible ureteroscopes: an ex vivo assessment and cost analysis

Single‐use disposable digital flexible ureteroscopes: an ex vivo assessment and cost analysis

Comparative investigation of reusable and single–use flexible endoscopes for urological interventions

Fiberoptic versus Digital: A Comparison of Durability and Cost Effectiveness of the Two Flexible Ureteroscopes

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About