Comparison of pre- and post-surgical images of reusable and single use flexible ureteroscopes: a qualitative analysis
Given the fragility of reusable ureterorenoscopes, many single use instruments have appeared on the market. Unfortunately, reuse of these scopes occurs in undeveloped countries in order to cut costs. This raises safety concerns for the patient.The aim of this article was to macroscopically evaluate...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | Central European journal of urology 2021-01, Vol.74 (3), p.459-463 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
container_end_page | 463 |
---|---|
container_issue | 3 |
container_start_page | 459 |
container_title | Central European journal of urology |
container_volume | 74 |
creator | Domenech, Alfredo Alliende, Cristian Vivaldi, Bruno Pizzi, Pablo |
description | Given the fragility of reusable ureterorenoscopes, many single use instruments have appeared on the market. Unfortunately, reuse of these scopes occurs in undeveloped countries in order to cut costs. This raises safety concerns for the patient.The aim of this article was to macroscopically evaluate the changes that single use flexible ureterorenoscopes (su-fURS) suffer after a retrograde intrarenal surgery (RIRS), and to compare them to reusable fURS.
Pre and post-operative images of the instruments used in 23 RIRS were obtained. All the cases had renal calculi of the inferior calix between 10-15 mm, and all of them were treated with Holmium laser. The ureterorenoscopes used were: Storz
Flex X2, Storz
Flex XC, Pusen
3022, OTU
Wiscope, AnQIng
Innovex and Boston Scientific
LithoVue. Qualitative comparisons of these were made.
After su-fURS usage, significant damage was observed, especially on the distal tip. Deflection was not compromised. Reusable fURS did not sustain any damage after their use.
fURS are delicate equipment, especially if they are of single use. The considerable damage sustained by single use scopes could mean that reuse of these instruments is dangerous and should be avoided. |
doi_str_mv | 10.5173/ceju.2021.0032.R2 |
format | Article |
fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_pubme</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_pubmedcentral_primary_oai_pubmedcentral_nih_gov_8552943</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>2593026470</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c357t-d2b697efe26e79c17c67f5b670d2f0176de8ba9156494013fdfa068f56f703fb3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNpdkU9v1DAQxS0EotXSD8AFReLCJYv_xHbCAQmtoEWqhFTB2XKc8eJVNk49cUW_PU5bVoAvHtm_eePnR8hrRreSafHewSFvOeVsS6ng2xv-jJxz2tK6abV4fqqpOiMXiAdalmobJeVLciYazTsu2nOSd_E42xQwTlX01Zygruw0VHPEpcac9sHZsQpHuwdcgQQZbT_CA4Rh2pcyI1R-hF9hPc8JFkgRXZwBP1S2us12DItdwt3aZMd7DPiKvPB2RLh42jfkx5fP33dX9fW3y6-7T9e1E1Iv9cB71WnwwBXozjHtlPayV5oO3FOm1QBtbzsmVdM1lAk_eFtMeqm8psL3YkM-PurOuT_C4GBakh3NnIqhdG-iDebfmyn8NPt4Z1opedeIIvDuSSDF2wy4mGNAB-NoJ4gZDZedoFw1ZdyGvP0PPcSciuEHqtFMU8UKxR4pV_4IE_jTYxg1a65mzdWsuZo1V3PDS8-bv12cOv6kKH4DjkehbQ</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Open Access Repository</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2594717061</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Comparison of pre- and post-surgical images of reusable and single use flexible ureteroscopes: a qualitative analysis</title><source>Elektronische Zeitschriftenbibliothek - Frei zugängliche E-Journals</source><source>PubMed Central</source><source>PubMed Central Open Access</source><creator>Domenech, Alfredo ; Alliende, Cristian ; Vivaldi, Bruno ; Pizzi, Pablo</creator><creatorcontrib>Domenech, Alfredo ; Alliende, Cristian ; Vivaldi, Bruno ; Pizzi, Pablo</creatorcontrib><description>Given the fragility of reusable ureterorenoscopes, many single use instruments have appeared on the market. Unfortunately, reuse of these scopes occurs in undeveloped countries in order to cut costs. This raises safety concerns for the patient.The aim of this article was to macroscopically evaluate the changes that single use flexible ureterorenoscopes (su-fURS) suffer after a retrograde intrarenal surgery (RIRS), and to compare them to reusable fURS.
Pre and post-operative images of the instruments used in 23 RIRS were obtained. All the cases had renal calculi of the inferior calix between 10-15 mm, and all of them were treated with Holmium laser. The ureterorenoscopes used were: Storz
Flex X2, Storz
Flex XC, Pusen
3022, OTU
Wiscope, AnQIng
Innovex and Boston Scientific
LithoVue. Qualitative comparisons of these were made.
After su-fURS usage, significant damage was observed, especially on the distal tip. Deflection was not compromised. Reusable fURS did not sustain any damage after their use.
fURS are delicate equipment, especially if they are of single use. The considerable damage sustained by single use scopes could mean that reuse of these instruments is dangerous and should be avoided.</description><identifier>ISSN: 2080-4806</identifier><identifier>ISSN: 2080-4873</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 2080-4873</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.5173/ceju.2021.0032.R2</identifier><identifier>PMID: 34729238</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Poland: Polish Urological Association</publisher><subject>Costs ; Lasers ; Original Paper ; Patient safety ; Surgery</subject><ispartof>Central European journal of urology, 2021-01, Vol.74 (3), p.459-463</ispartof><rights>Copyright by Polish Urological Association.</rights><rights>Copyright Polish Urological Association 2021</rights><rights>Copyright by Polish Urological Association 2021</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c357t-d2b697efe26e79c17c67f5b670d2f0176de8ba9156494013fdfa068f56f703fb3</citedby></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8552943/pdf/$$EPDF$$P50$$Gpubmedcentral$$Hfree_for_read</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8552943/$$EHTML$$P50$$Gpubmedcentral$$Hfree_for_read</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>230,314,723,776,780,881,27901,27902,53766,53768</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34729238$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Domenech, Alfredo</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Alliende, Cristian</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Vivaldi, Bruno</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Pizzi, Pablo</creatorcontrib><title>Comparison of pre- and post-surgical images of reusable and single use flexible ureteroscopes: a qualitative analysis</title><title>Central European journal of urology</title><addtitle>Cent European J Urol</addtitle><description>Given the fragility of reusable ureterorenoscopes, many single use instruments have appeared on the market. Unfortunately, reuse of these scopes occurs in undeveloped countries in order to cut costs. This raises safety concerns for the patient.The aim of this article was to macroscopically evaluate the changes that single use flexible ureterorenoscopes (su-fURS) suffer after a retrograde intrarenal surgery (RIRS), and to compare them to reusable fURS.
Pre and post-operative images of the instruments used in 23 RIRS were obtained. All the cases had renal calculi of the inferior calix between 10-15 mm, and all of them were treated with Holmium laser. The ureterorenoscopes used were: Storz
Flex X2, Storz
Flex XC, Pusen
3022, OTU
Wiscope, AnQIng
Innovex and Boston Scientific
LithoVue. Qualitative comparisons of these were made.
After su-fURS usage, significant damage was observed, especially on the distal tip. Deflection was not compromised. Reusable fURS did not sustain any damage after their use.
fURS are delicate equipment, especially if they are of single use. The considerable damage sustained by single use scopes could mean that reuse of these instruments is dangerous and should be avoided.</description><subject>Costs</subject><subject>Lasers</subject><subject>Original Paper</subject><subject>Patient safety</subject><subject>Surgery</subject><issn>2080-4806</issn><issn>2080-4873</issn><issn>2080-4873</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2021</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><recordid>eNpdkU9v1DAQxS0EotXSD8AFReLCJYv_xHbCAQmtoEWqhFTB2XKc8eJVNk49cUW_PU5bVoAvHtm_eePnR8hrRreSafHewSFvOeVsS6ng2xv-jJxz2tK6abV4fqqpOiMXiAdalmobJeVLciYazTsu2nOSd_E42xQwTlX01Zygruw0VHPEpcac9sHZsQpHuwdcgQQZbT_CA4Rh2pcyI1R-hF9hPc8JFkgRXZwBP1S2us12DItdwt3aZMd7DPiKvPB2RLh42jfkx5fP33dX9fW3y6-7T9e1E1Iv9cB71WnwwBXozjHtlPayV5oO3FOm1QBtbzsmVdM1lAk_eFtMeqm8psL3YkM-PurOuT_C4GBakh3NnIqhdG-iDebfmyn8NPt4Z1opedeIIvDuSSDF2wy4mGNAB-NoJ4gZDZedoFw1ZdyGvP0PPcSciuEHqtFMU8UKxR4pV_4IE_jTYxg1a65mzdWsuZo1V3PDS8-bv12cOv6kKH4DjkehbQ</recordid><startdate>20210101</startdate><enddate>20210101</enddate><creator>Domenech, Alfredo</creator><creator>Alliende, Cristian</creator><creator>Vivaldi, Bruno</creator><creator>Pizzi, Pablo</creator><general>Polish Urological Association</general><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7X7</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>8FI</scope><scope>8FJ</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>BYOGL</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>FYUFA</scope><scope>GHDGH</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>M0S</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PRINS</scope><scope>7X8</scope><scope>5PM</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20210101</creationdate><title>Comparison of pre- and post-surgical images of reusable and single use flexible ureteroscopes: a qualitative analysis</title><author>Domenech, Alfredo ; Alliende, Cristian ; Vivaldi, Bruno ; Pizzi, Pablo</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c357t-d2b697efe26e79c17c67f5b670d2f0176de8ba9156494013fdfa068f56f703fb3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2021</creationdate><topic>Costs</topic><topic>Lasers</topic><topic>Original Paper</topic><topic>Patient safety</topic><topic>Surgery</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Domenech, Alfredo</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Alliende, Cristian</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Vivaldi, Bruno</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Pizzi, Pablo</creatorcontrib><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>East Europe, Central Europe Database</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Health & Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>ProQuest Central China</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><collection>PubMed Central (Full Participant titles)</collection><jtitle>Central European journal of urology</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Domenech, Alfredo</au><au>Alliende, Cristian</au><au>Vivaldi, Bruno</au><au>Pizzi, Pablo</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Comparison of pre- and post-surgical images of reusable and single use flexible ureteroscopes: a qualitative analysis</atitle><jtitle>Central European journal of urology</jtitle><addtitle>Cent European J Urol</addtitle><date>2021-01-01</date><risdate>2021</risdate><volume>74</volume><issue>3</issue><spage>459</spage><epage>463</epage><pages>459-463</pages><issn>2080-4806</issn><issn>2080-4873</issn><eissn>2080-4873</eissn><abstract>Given the fragility of reusable ureterorenoscopes, many single use instruments have appeared on the market. Unfortunately, reuse of these scopes occurs in undeveloped countries in order to cut costs. This raises safety concerns for the patient.The aim of this article was to macroscopically evaluate the changes that single use flexible ureterorenoscopes (su-fURS) suffer after a retrograde intrarenal surgery (RIRS), and to compare them to reusable fURS.
Pre and post-operative images of the instruments used in 23 RIRS were obtained. All the cases had renal calculi of the inferior calix between 10-15 mm, and all of them were treated with Holmium laser. The ureterorenoscopes used were: Storz
Flex X2, Storz
Flex XC, Pusen
3022, OTU
Wiscope, AnQIng
Innovex and Boston Scientific
LithoVue. Qualitative comparisons of these were made.
After su-fURS usage, significant damage was observed, especially on the distal tip. Deflection was not compromised. Reusable fURS did not sustain any damage after their use.
fURS are delicate equipment, especially if they are of single use. The considerable damage sustained by single use scopes could mean that reuse of these instruments is dangerous and should be avoided.</abstract><cop>Poland</cop><pub>Polish Urological Association</pub><pmid>34729238</pmid><doi>10.5173/ceju.2021.0032.R2</doi><tpages>5</tpages><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record> |
fulltext | fulltext |
identifier | ISSN: 2080-4806 |
ispartof | Central European journal of urology, 2021-01, Vol.74 (3), p.459-463 |
issn | 2080-4806 2080-4873 2080-4873 |
language | eng |
recordid | cdi_pubmedcentral_primary_oai_pubmedcentral_nih_gov_8552943 |
source | Elektronische Zeitschriftenbibliothek - Frei zugängliche E-Journals; PubMed Central; PubMed Central Open Access |
subjects | Costs Lasers Original Paper Patient safety Surgery |
title | Comparison of pre- and post-surgical images of reusable and single use flexible ureteroscopes: a qualitative analysis |
url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-29T20%3A17%3A25IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_pubme&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Comparison%20of%20pre-%20and%20post-surgical%20images%20of%20reusable%20and%20single%20use%20flexible%20ureteroscopes:%20a%20qualitative%20analysis&rft.jtitle=Central%20European%20journal%20of%20urology&rft.au=Domenech,%20Alfredo&rft.date=2021-01-01&rft.volume=74&rft.issue=3&rft.spage=459&rft.epage=463&rft.pages=459-463&rft.issn=2080-4806&rft.eissn=2080-4873&rft_id=info:doi/10.5173/ceju.2021.0032.R2&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_pubme%3E2593026470%3C/proquest_pubme%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2594717061&rft_id=info:pmid/34729238&rfr_iscdi=true |