Advertisement

Safety and Care of Ureteroscopic Instruments

  • Panagiotis Kallidonis
  • Mohammed Alfozan
  • Evangelos Liatsikos
Chapter

Abstract

The complex and fragile nature of flexible ureteroscopes leads to issues regarding their reliability and maintenance costs. The durability of ureteroscopes is related not only to their design but also to the technique used by and experience of the operator. The current chapter provides information on how to use, clean, sterilize, and store flexible ureteroscopes in order to avoid costly repairs. The impact of single-use ureteroscopes is also discussed.

Keywords

Ureteroscopy (URS) Laser Urinary calculi Flexible ureterorenoscopy Urinary tract Endoscopes Disinfection Sterilization Manufacturer’s instructions Durability Instrument handling Deflection Irrigation flow rate Nitinol basket Digital Instrumentation Renal stones Durability Holmium laser Lithotripsy 

Abbreviations

fURS

Flexible ureteroscopy

References

  1. 1.
    Wickham JE. Treatment of urinary tract stones. BMJ (Clin Res Ed). 1993;307(6916):1414–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Beiko DT, Denstedt JD. Advances in ureterorenoscopy. Urol Clin North Am. 2007;34(3):397–408.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Papatsoris AG, Kachrilas S, Howairis ME, Masood J, Buchholz N. Novel technologies in flexible ureterorenoscopy. Arab J Urol. 2011;9(1):41–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Carey RI, Gomez CS, Maurici G, Lynne CM, Leveillee RJ, Bird VG. Frequency of ureteroscope damage seen at a tertiary care center. J Urol. 2006;176(2):607–10; discussion 10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Traxer O, Dubosq F, Jamali K, Gattegno B, Thibault P. New-generation flexible ureterorenoscopes are more durable than previous ones. Urology. 2006;68(2):276–9. discussion 80CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Al-Qahtani SM, Geavlete B, Geavlette BP, de Medina SG-D, Traxer OP. The new Olympus digital flexible ureteroscope (URF-V): initial experience. Urology annals. 2011;3(3):133–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Binbay M, Yuruk E, Akman T, Ozgor F, Seyrek M, Ozkuvanci U, et al. Is there a difference in outcomes between digital and fiberoptic flexible ureterorenoscopy procedures? J Endourol. 2010;24(12):1929–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Sung JC, Springhart WP, Marguet CG, L’Esperance JO, Tan YH, Albala DM, et al. Location and etiology of flexible and semirigid ureteroscope damage. Urology. 2005;66(5):958–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Afane JS, Olweny EO, Bercowsky E, Sundaram CP, Dunn MD, Shalhav AL, et al. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    User HM, Hua V, Blunt LW, Wambi C, Gonzalez CM, Nadler RB. Performance and durability of leading flexible ureteroscopes. J Endourol. 2004;18(8):735–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    McDougall EM, Afane JS, Dunn MD, Shalhav AL, Clayman RV. Laparoscopic management of retrovesical cystic disease: Washington University experience and review of the literature. J Endourol. 2001;15(8):815–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Pietrow PK, Auge BK, Delvecchio FC, Silverstein AD, Weizer AZ, Albala DM, et al. Techniques to maximize flexible ureteroscope longevity. Urology. 2002;60(5):784–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Wendth-Nordahl G, Mut T, Krombach P, et al. Do new generation ureterorenoscopes offer a higher treatment success than their predecessors? Urol Res. 2011;39. SRC – BaiduScholar:185–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Zilberman DE, Tsivian M, Yong D, Albala DM. Surgical steps that elongate operative time in robot-assisted radical prostatectomy among the obese population. J Endourol. 2011;25(5):793–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Karaolides T, Bach C, Kachrilas S, Goyal A, Masood J, Buchholz N. Improving the durability of digital flexible ureteroscopes. Urology. 2013;81(4):717–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Ghani KR, Bultitude M, Hegarty N, Thomas K, Glass J. Flexible ureterorenoscopy (URS) for lower pole calculi. BJU Int. 2012;110(2):294–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Ng YH, Somani BK, Dennison A, Kata SG, Nabi G, Brown S. Irrigant flow and intrarenal pressure during flexible ureteroscopy: the effect of different access sheaths, working channel instruments, and hydrostatic pressure. J Endourol. 2010;24(12):1915–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Kourambas J, Byrne RR, Preminger GM. Does a ureteral access sheath facilitate ureteroscopy? J Urol. 2001;165(3):789–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Breda A, Territo A, López-Martínez JM. Benefits and risks of ureteral access sheaths for retrograde renal access. Curr Opin Urol. 2016;26(1):70–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Traxer O, Thomas A. Prospective evaluation and classification of ureteral wall injuries resulting from insertion of a ureteral access sheath during retrograde intrarenal surgery. J Urol. 2013;189(2):580–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Somani BK, Aboumarzouk O, Srivastava A, Traxer O. Flexible ureterorenoscopy: tips and tricks. Urology Ann. 2013;5(1):1–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Sprunger JK, Herrell SD. Techniques of ureteroscopy. Urol Clin North Am. 2004;31(1):61–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Monga M, Dretler SP, Landman J, Slaton JW, Conradie MC, Clayman RV. Maximizing ureteroscope deflection: “play it straight”. Urology. 2002;60(5):902–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Sooriakumaran P, Kaba R, Andrews HO, Buchholz NPN. Evaluation of the mechanisms of damage to flexible ureteroscopes and suggestions for ureteroscope preservation. Asian J Androl. 2005;7(4):433–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Sooriakumaran P, Buchholz NPN. Who broke the ureteroscope? BJU Int. 2004;94(1):4–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Aiello AE, Larson EL, Sedlak R. Hidden heroes of the health revolution. Sanitation and personal hygiene. Am J Infect Control. 2008;36(10 Suppl):S128–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Semins MJ, George S, Allaf ME, Matlaga BR. Ureteroscope cleaning and sterilization by the urology operating room team: the effect on repair costs. J Endourol. 2009;23(6):903–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Recommended practices for cleaning and caring for surgical instruments and powered equipment. AORN J. 2002;75:627–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Vrancich A. Instrumental care. Creating longevity through proper maintenance. Mater Manag Health Care. 2003;12(3):22–5.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Clemens JQ. Afferent neurourology: an epidemiological perspective. J Urol. 2010;184(2):432–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Association for the Advancement of Medical Instrumentation. ST91 Flexible and semirigid endoscope processing in health care facilities. 2015.Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Rutala WA, Weber DJ. Reprocessing semicritical items: current issues and new technologies. Am J Infect Control. 2016;44(5 Suppl):e53–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Ordon M, Urbach D, Mamdani M, Saskin R, Honey RJDA, Pace KT. A population based study of the changing demographics of patients undergoing definitive treatment for kidney stone disease. J Urol. 2015;193(3):869–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Knudsen B, Miyaoka R, Shah K, Holden T, Turk TMT, Pedro RN, et al. Durability of the next-generation flexible fiberoptic ureteroscopes: a randomized prospective multi-institutional clinical trial. Urology. 2010;75(3):534–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Landman J, Lee DI, Lee C, Monga M. Evaluation of overall costs of currently available small flexible ureteroscopes. Urology. 2003;62(2):218–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Kramolowsky E, McDowell Z, Moore B, Booth B, Wood N. Cost analysis of flexible ureteroscope repairs: evaluation of 655 procedures in a community-based practice. J Endourol. 2016;30(3):254–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Taguchi K, Harper JD, Stoller ML, Duty BD, Sorensen MD, Sur RL, et al. Identifying factors associated with need for flexible ureteroscope repair: a Western Endourology STone (WEST) research consortium prospective cohort study. Urolithiasis. 2018;46(6):559–66. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00240-017-1013-y.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Proietti S, Dragos L, Molina W, Doizi S, Giusti G, Traxer O. Comparison of new single-use digital flexible ureteroscope versus nondisposable fiber optic and digital ureteroscope in a cadaveric model. J Endourol. 2016;30(6):655–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Usawachintachit M, Isaacson DS, Taguchi K, Tzou DT, Hsi RS, Sherer BA, et al. A prospective case-control study comparing LithoVue, a single-use, flexible disposable ureteroscope, with flexible, reusable fiber-optic ureteroscopes. J Endourol. 2017;31(5):468–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Davis NF, Quinlan MR, Browne C, Bhatt NR, Manecksha RP, D’Arcy FT, et al. Single-use flexible ureteropyeloscopy: a systematic review. World J Urol. 2018;36(4):529–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Taguchi K, Usawachintachit M, Tzou DT, Sherer BA, Metzler I, Isaacson D, et al. Micro-costing analysis demonstrates comparable costs for LithoVue compared to reusable flexible fiberoptic ureteroscopes. J Endourol. 2018;32(4):267–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Martin CJ, McAdams SB, Abdul-Muhsin H, Lim VM, Nunez-Nateras R, Tyson MD, et al. The economic implications of a reusable flexible digital ureteroscope: a cost-benefit analysis. J Urol. 2017;197(3 Pt 1):730–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  • Panagiotis Kallidonis
    • 1
  • Mohammed Alfozan
    • 1
    • 2
  • Evangelos Liatsikos
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of UrologyUniversity Hospital of PatrasPatrasGreece
  2. 2.College of MedicinePrince Sattam Bin Abdulaziz UniversityAl KharjSaudi Arabia

Personalised recommendations