Cargando…

A clinical evaluation of the new digital single-use flexible ureteroscope (UscopePU3022): an international prospective multicentered study

INTRODUCTION: We assessed the clinical performance of a new digital single-use flexible ureteroscope (UscopePU3022). MATERIAL AND METHODS: A prospective cohort study was carried out across 11 centers (July–Oct. 2017). The UscopePU3022 was assessed regarding ease of insertion; deflection, image quali...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Johnston, Thomas James, Baard, Joyce, de la Rosette, Jean, Doizi, Steeve, Giusti, Guido, Knoll, Thomas, Proietti, Silvia, Brehmer, Marianne, Emiliani, Esteban, Pérez-Fentes, Daniel, Osther, Palle Jorn Sloth, Seitz, Christian, Neal, Naomi, Turney, Ben, Hasan, Mudhar, Traxer, Olivier, Wiseman, Oliver
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Polish Urological Association 2018
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6338818/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30680241
http://dx.doi.org/10.5173/ceju.2018.1787
Descripción
Sumario:INTRODUCTION: We assessed the clinical performance of a new digital single-use flexible ureteroscope (UscopePU3022). MATERIAL AND METHODS: A prospective cohort study was carried out across 11 centers (July–Oct. 2017). The UscopePU3022 was assessed regarding ease of insertion; deflection, image quality, maneuverability and overall performance using either a visual analog* or Likert scale. RESULTS: A total of 56 procedures were performed in 11 centers (16 surgeons) with the indication being renal stones in 83%. The median score for ease of scope insertion was 10 (3–10). Intraoperative maneuverability was rated as ‘good’ in 38% and ‘very good’ in 52%. Visual quality was rated as ‘poor or bad’ in 18%, ‘fair’ in 37% and ‘good or very good’ in 43%. Two scopes failed intraoperatively (4%). Preoperative and postoperative median upward and downward deflection was 270 degrees. Compared to standard flexible ureteroscopy (f-URS) maneuverability was rated as ‘equivalent’ in 30% and ‘better’ in 60%; visual quality was ‘worse’ in 38% and ‘equivalent or better’ in 62%; limb fatigue scores were ‘better’ in 86%; and overall performance was ‘worse’ in 55% and ‘equivalent or better’ in 45%. CONCLUSIONS: UscopeTM3022 performed well with regards to maneuverability, deflection and limb fatigue and appears to be at least non-inferior to standard f-URS with regards to these parameters. Poor image quality is a concern for UscopePU3022 with it receiving a low overall performance rating when compared to standard f-URS. Despite this it scored highly when investigators were asked if they would use it in their practice if it was cost-effective to do so.