Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Characteristics of Semirigid and Flexible Ureteroscopes for Upper Tract Tumors

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Urothelial Malignancies of the Upper Urinary Tract

  • 413 Accesses

Abstract

The least invasive method of accessing the upper tract and tumor originating therein that provides direct visualization and possibility of sampling and treatment is via ureteroscopy. Ureteroscopy in the lower ureters can be done with a semirigid ureteroscope and proximal to that with a flexible ureterorenoscope. In this chapter, we summarize the commonly available devices in both semirigid and flexible categories, and highlight their features and properties. A review of conventional (fiberoptic) and digital sensor flexible ureteroscopes as well as unique issues related to these devices including image quality, ease of navigation, channel sizes and irrigation properties, scope durability as well as cost issues is also included in this chapter.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution

Institutional subscriptions

References

  1. Bozzini P. Lichtleiter, eine Erfindung zur Anschauung innerer Teile und Krankheiten, nebst der Abbildung (Light conductor, an invention for examining internal parts and diseases, together with illustrations). J der practischen Arzneykunde und Wundarzneykunst (J Practical Med Surgery). 1806;24:107–24.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Marshall VF. Fiber Optics in Urology. J Urol. 1964;91:110–4.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Goodman TM. Ureteroscopy with rigid instruments in the management of distal ureteral disease. J Urol. 1984;132:250–3.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Paffen ML, Keizer JG, de Winter GV, Arends AJ, Hendrikx AJ. A comparison of the physical properties of four new generation flexible ureteroscopes: (de)flection, flow properties, torsion stiffness, and optical characteristics. J Endourol. 2008;22(10):2227–34.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Razvan M, Geavlete B, Georgescu D, Geavlete P. Conventional fiberoptic flexible ureteroscope versus fourth generation digital flexible ureteroscope: a critical comparison. J Endourol. 2010;24(1):17–21.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Lusch A, Abdelshehid C, Hidas G, Osann KE, Okhunov Z, McDougall E, Landman J. In vitro and in vivo comparison of optics and performance of a distal sensor Ureteroscope versus a standard fiberoptic Ureteroscope. J Endourol. 2013;27(7):896–902.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  7. Li K, Lin T, Fan X, Duan Y, Huang J. Diagnosis of narrow-band imaging in non-muscle-invasive bladder cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Int J Urol. 2013;20(6):602–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Traxer O, Geavlete B, de Medina SG, Sibony M, Al-Qahtani S. Narrow-band imaging digital flexible ureteroscopy in detection of upper urinary tract transitional-cell carcinoma: initial experience. J Endourol. 2011;25(1):19–23.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Monga M, Weiland D, Pedro RN, Lynch AC, Anderson K. Intrarenal manipulation of flexible ureteroscopes: a comparative study. BJU Int. 2007;100(1):157–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Bagley DH. Intrarenal access with the flexible ureteropyeloscope: effects of active and passive tip deflection. J Endourol. 1993;7(3):221–4.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Monga M, Anderson K, Durfee W. Physical properties of flexible Ureteroscopes: implications for clinical practice. J Endourol. 2004;18(5):462–5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Poon M, Beaghler M, Baldwin D. Flexible endoscope deflectability: changes using a variety of working instruments and laser fibers. J Endourol. 1997;11:247–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Monga M, Dretler SP, Landman J, Slaton JW, Conradie MC, Clayman RV. Maximizing ureteroscope deflection: play it straight. Urology. 2002;60(5):902–5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Shah K, Monga M, Knudsen B. Prospective randomized trial comparing 2 flexible digital ureteroscopes: ACMI/Olympus invisio DUR-D and Olympus URF-V. Urology. 2015;85(6):1267–71.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Haberman K, Ortiz-Alvarado O, Chotikawanich E, Monga M. A dual-channel flexible ureteroscope: evaluation of deflection, flow, illumination, and optics. J Endourol. 2011;25(9):1411–4.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Lusch A, Okhunov Z, del Junco M, Yoon R, Khanipour R, Menhadji A, Landman J. Comparison of optics and performance of single channel and a novel dual-channel fiberoptic ureteroscope. Urology. 2015;85(1):268–72.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Jung H, Osther P. Intraluminal pressure profiles during flexible ureterorenoscopy. SpringerPlus. 2015;4:373.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  18. Afane JS, Olweny EO, Bercowsky E, Sundaram CP, Dunn MD, Shalhav AL, McDougall EM, Clayman RV. Flexible ureteroscopes: a single center evaluation of the durability and function of the new endoscopes smaller than 9Fr. J Urol. 2000;164(4):1164–8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Multescu R, Geavlete B, Geavlete P. A new era: performance and limitations of the latest models of flexible ureteroscopes. Urology. 2013;82(6):1236–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Payne DA, Keeley Jr FX. Rigid and Flexible Ureteroscopes: Technical Features. Smith’s Textbook of Endourology. 3rd ed. West Sussex, United Kingdom: Wiley-Blackwell; 2012.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  21. Knudsen B, Miyaoka R, Shah K, Holden T, Turk TM, Pedro RN, Kriedberg C, Hinck B, Ortiz-Alvarado O, Monga M. Durability of the next-generation flexible fiberoptic Ureteroscopes: a randomized prospective multi-institutional clinical trial. Urology. 2010;75(3):534–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Multescu R, Geavlete B, Georgescu D, Geavlete P. Improved durability of flex-Xc digital flexible ureteroscope: how long can you expect it to last? Urology. 2014;84(1):32–5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Landman J, Lee DI, Lee C, Monga M. Evaluation of overall costs of currently available small flexible ureteroscopes. Urology. 2003;62(2):218–22.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Tosoian JJ, Ludwig W, Sopko N, Mullins JK, Matlaga BR. The effect of repair costs on the profitability of a ureteroscopy program. J Endourol. 2015;29(4):406–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Carey RI, Martin CJ, Knego JR. Prospective evaluation of refurbished flexible ureteroscope durability seen in a large public tertiary care center with multiple surgeons. Urology. 2014;84(1):42–5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Glickman Urological and Kidney Institute, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, OH, USA

    Arash Akhavein & Manoj Monga

  2. Cedar Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, CA, USA

    Arash Akhavein

Authors
  1. Arash Akhavein
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Manoj Monga
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Arash Akhavein .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Chief, Section of Endourology and Minimally Invasive Urology, Westchester Medical Health Network, Valhalla, New York, USA

    Majid Eshghi

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2018 Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Akhavein, A., Monga, M. (2018). Characteristics of Semirigid and Flexible Ureteroscopes for Upper Tract Tumors. In: Eshghi, M. (eds) Urothelial Malignancies of the Upper Urinary Tract. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-51263-1_11

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-51263-1_11

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-319-51261-7

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-51263-1

  • eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation