English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Objectives:  Due to the increasing fragility of the instruments and rising concerns about the sterility of reprocessable scopes, several single-use devices for flexible ureteroscopy have been introduced. In this study, we compare currently available disposable digital and fiberoptic flexible ureteroscopes with a contemporary reusable fiberoptic device.  Materials and Methods:  LithoVue™, Pusen Uscope ® (UE3011, UE3022), Flexor ® Vue™, and a reusable fiber optic flexible ureteroscope (BOA vision ® ) were tested in kidney models. The setup included (1) visualization of all calices (correct assignment of colored pearls) and (2) the extraction of human calculi with a standard disposable extraction device (NGage ® ). We documented the effective visualization, stone extraction, and times to completion. In addition, the surgeons' workload and performance were determined using the National Aeronautics and Space Administration-Task Load Index.  Results:  In visualizing and identifying calices, the LithoVue and both generations of the Uscope performed similarly, but time to completion was significantly longer for all single-use devices in comparison with the Boa Vision. LithoVue retracted stones almost as well as the reusable scope (97% vs 95%/82%/96% stone clearance), while accessibility was impeded using Uscope UE3011, as reflected by the retrieval time per stone (73 vs 102 seconds/stone). This disadvantage has, however, been overcome with the new Uscope Generation UE3022, showing a retrieval time of only 65 seconds per stone, excelling over the reusable scope in this category. The Uscope UE3022 image quality was also rated best, but showed no significant difference.  Conclusions:  In comparison with disposable ureteroscopes available, LithoVue offers performance and characteristics similar to a reusable device, while the FlexorVu's performance does not yet yield satisfactory results for clinical use. The first generation of Uscope exhibits potential, but requires further technical improvements to match the performance of a reusable device. With the new-generation UE3022, Pusen has made significant improvement and offers a quality comparable with the LithoVue's.

Current Disposable Ureteroscopes: Performance and Limitations in a Standardized Kidney Model