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,...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Eisel, Maximilian, Strittmatter, Frank, Ströbl, Stephan, Freymüller, Christian, Pongratz, Thomas, Sroka, Ronald
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