Instruments

Georgescu, D.; Multescu, R.; Mirciulescu, V.; Geavlete, P.; Geavlete, B.

doi:10.1016/b978-0-12-802403-4.00003-6

Cited by 3 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 56 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…During the 1980s, a rapid development took place as urologists began to treat stones with ultrasonic lithotripters. As great safety concerns about the size of scopes and instruments prevailed, the movement to miniaturise the fURS commenced [1]. This drive to miniaturise has occurred alongside the desire to improve characteristics such as image quality, flexibility, irrigation, ease of use of different instruments and durability.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Uniform grading tooL for flexIble ureterorenoscoPes (TULIP‐tool): a Delphi consensus project on standardised evaluation of flexible ureterorenoscopes

et al. 2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective To develop a standardised tool to evaluate flexible ureterorenoscopes (fURS). Materials and Methods A three‐stage consensus building approach based on the modified Delphi technique was performed under guidance of a steering group. First, scope‐ and user‐related parameters used to evaluate fURS were identified through a systematic scoping review. Then, the main categories and subcategories were defined, and the expert panel was selected. Finally, a two‐step modified Delphi consensus project was conducted to firstly obtain consensus on the relevance and exact definition of each (sub)category necessary to evaluate fURS, and secondly on the evaluation method (setting, used tools and unit of outcome) of those (sub)categories. Consensus was reached at a predefined threshold of 80% high agreement. Results The panel consisted of 30 experts in the field of endourology. The first step of the modified Delphi consensus project consisted of two questionnaires with a response rate of 97% (n = 29) for both. Consensus was reached for the relevance and definition of six main categories and 12 subcategories. The second step consisted of three questionnaires (response rate of 90%, 97% and 100%, respectively). Consensus was reached on the method of measurement for all (sub)categories. Conclusion This modified Delphi consensus project reached consensus on a standardised grading tool for the evaluation of fURS – The Uniform grading tooL for flexIble ureterorenoscoPes (TULIP) tool. This is a first step in creating uniformity in this field of research to facilitate future comparison of outcomes of the functionality and handling of fURS.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Uniform grading tooL for flexIble ureterorenoscoPes (TULIP‐tool): a Delphi consensus project on standardised evaluation of flexible ureterorenoscopes

et al. 2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Since the introduction of flexible ureterorenoscopes in the 1970s, efforts have been made to reduce their size whilst optimising the working channel for irrigation flow and introducing numerous accessory instruments. Meanwhile, retaining optimal bidirectional deflecting properties and image quality [ 3 , 4 ]. Attempts to serve these seemingly conflicting interests resulted in flexible ureterorenoscopes which have become more fragile and prone to damage with loss of functionality [ 5 ].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

How to evaluate a flexible ureterorenoscope? Systematic mapping of existing evaluation methods

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The objective of this study was to identify, map and review scope-related and user-related parameters used to evaluate the quality of flexible ureterorenoscopes. Thereby identifying key items and variability in grading systems. MethodsA literature search of four databases (MEDLINE [Ovid], EMBASE [Ovid], Web of Science, Google scholar and the Cochrane Library) was performed according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines encompassing articles published up to August 2020. A total of 2386 articles were screened. ResultsA total of 48 articles were included in this systematic scoping review. All studies had a prospective design. Five key items in the assessment of flexible ureterorenoscopy were distinguished: 'Manoeuvrability' (87.5%), 'Optics' (64.6%), 'Irrigation' (56.3%), 'Handling' (39.6%) and 'Durability' (35.4%). After regrouping, every key item could be divided into specific subcategories. However, the quality assessment showed a wide variation in denomination, method of measurement, circumstances of measurement, tools used during measurements, number of measurements performed, number of observers, and units of outcomes. ConclusionThe research field regarding quality assessment of ureterorenoscopes is heterogeneous. In this systematic scoping review we identified five key parameters: Manoeuvrability, Optics, Irrigation, Handling and Durability, used to grade flexible ureterorenoscopes. However, within these categories we found a wide variety in terms of method of measurements. A standardised, uniform grading tool is required to assess and compare the quality of flexible ureterorenoscopes in the future.

show abstract

Treatment of Urolithiasis

Al-Mamari

2017

Urolithiasis in Clinical Practice

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Instruments

Cited by 3 publications

References 56 publications

The Uniform grading tooL for flexIble ureterorenoscoPes (TULIP‐tool): a Delphi consensus project on standardised evaluation of flexible ureterorenoscopes

The Uniform grading tooL for flexIble ureterorenoscoPes (TULIP‐tool): a Delphi consensus project on standardised evaluation of flexible ureterorenoscopes

How to evaluate a flexible ureterorenoscope? Systematic mapping of existing evaluation methods

Treatment of Urolithiasis

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About