Cargando…
Comparative investigation of reusable and single–use flexible endoscopes for urological interventions
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,...
Autores principales: | , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Nature Publishing Group UK
2020
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7105476/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32231344 http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41598-020-62657-w |
_version_ | 1783512410387120128 |
---|---|
author | Eisel, Maximilian Strittmatter, Frank Ströbl, Stephan Freymüller, Christian Pongratz, Thomas Sroka, Ronald |
author_facet | Eisel, Maximilian Strittmatter, Frank Ströbl, Stephan Freymüller, Christian Pongratz, Thomas Sroka, Ronald |
author_sort | Eisel, Maximilian |
collection | PubMed |
description | 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. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-7105476 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2020 |
publisher | Nature Publishing Group UK |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-71054762020-04-06 Comparative investigation of reusable and single–use flexible endoscopes for urological interventions Eisel, Maximilian Strittmatter, Frank Ströbl, Stephan Freymüller, Christian Pongratz, Thomas Sroka, Ronald Sci Rep Article 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. Nature Publishing Group UK 2020-03-30 /pmc/articles/PMC7105476/ /pubmed/32231344 http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41598-020-62657-w Text en © The Author(s) 2020 Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. |
spellingShingle | Article Eisel, Maximilian Strittmatter, Frank Ströbl, Stephan Freymüller, Christian Pongratz, Thomas Sroka, Ronald Comparative investigation of reusable and single–use flexible endoscopes for urological interventions |
title | Comparative investigation of reusable and single–use flexible endoscopes for urological interventions |
title_full | Comparative investigation of reusable and single–use flexible endoscopes for urological interventions |
title_fullStr | Comparative investigation of reusable and single–use flexible endoscopes for urological interventions |
title_full_unstemmed | Comparative investigation of reusable and single–use flexible endoscopes for urological interventions |
title_short | Comparative investigation of reusable and single–use flexible endoscopes for urological interventions |
title_sort | comparative investigation of reusable and single–use flexible endoscopes for urological interventions |
topic | Article |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7105476/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32231344 http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41598-020-62657-w |
work_keys_str_mv | AT eiselmaximilian comparativeinvestigationofreusableandsingleuseflexibleendoscopesforurologicalinterventions AT strittmatterfrank comparativeinvestigationofreusableandsingleuseflexibleendoscopesforurologicalinterventions AT stroblstephan comparativeinvestigationofreusableandsingleuseflexibleendoscopesforurologicalinterventions AT freymullerchristian comparativeinvestigationofreusableandsingleuseflexibleendoscopesforurologicalinterventions AT pongratzthomas comparativeinvestigationofreusableandsingleuseflexibleendoscopesforurologicalinterventions AT srokaronald comparativeinvestigationofreusableandsingleuseflexibleendoscopesforurologicalinterventions |