Advertisement

Characteristics of Semirigid and Flexible Ureteroscopes for Upper Tract Tumors

  • Arash Akhavein
  • Manoj Monga
Chapter

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.

Keywords

Endoscope Ureteroscope Semirigid Flexible Fiberoptics Distal sensor digital ureteroscope 

References

  1. 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. 2.
    Marshall VF. Fiber Optics in Urology. J Urol. 1964;91:110–4.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Goodman TM. Ureteroscopy with rigid instruments in the management of distal ureteral disease. J Urol. 1984;132:250–3.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 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.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 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.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  7. 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.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 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.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 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.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Bagley DH. Intrarenal access with the flexible ureteropyeloscope: effects of active and passive tip deflection. J Endourol. 1993;7(3):221–4.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Monga M, Anderson K, Durfee W. Physical properties of flexible Ureteroscopes: implications for clinical practice. J Endourol. 2004;18(5):462–5.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 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.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 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.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 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.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 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.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 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.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Jung H, Osther P. Intraluminal pressure profiles during flexible ureterorenoscopy. SpringerPlus. 2015;4:373.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  18. 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.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 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.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 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.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 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.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 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.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 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.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 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.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Glickman Urological and Kidney InstituteCleveland ClinicClevelandUSA
  2. 2.Cedar Sinai Medical CenterLos AngelesUSA

Personalised recommendations