Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Difficulties in Instrumentation of Endourologic Procedures

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Book cover Difficult Cases in Endourology

  • 1044 Accesses

Abstract

Endourologic surgery has become successful in achieving its goals through the significant development of instruments and disposables. Obviously, one of the major improvements occurred in the optics and their miniaturization. Subsequently, a thorough understanding of the important details of the instruments and disposables is essential in efficient endourologic surgery. In this chapter, the emphasis will be mostly related to ureteroscopy (URS) and percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL), with discussion of common instruments and important disposables. A few practical points regarding associated problems and solutions will be discussed.

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

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 119.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  1. Dickstein RJ, Kreshover JE, Babayan RK, Wang DS. Is a safety wire necessary during routine flexible ureteroscopy? J Endourol. 2010;24:1589–92.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Eandi JA, Hu B, Low RK. Evaluation of the impact and need for use of a safety guidewire during ureteroscopy. J Endourol. 2008;22:1653–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Holden T, Pedro RN, Hendlin K, Durfee W, Monga M. Evidence-based instrumentation for flexible ureteroscopy: a review. J Endourol. 2008;22:1423–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Clayman M, Uribe CA, Eichel L, Gordon Z, Mcdougall EM, Clayman R. Comparison of guide wires in urology. Which, when and why? J Urol. 2004;171:2146–50.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Hendlin K, Korman E, Monga M. Guidewires: lubricity and shaft stiffness (abstract). J Endourol. 2010;24:PS4–14.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Weiland D, Canales BK, Monga M. Medical devices used for ureteroscopy for renal calculi. Expert Rev Med Devices. 2006;3:73–80.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Shields JM, Tunuguntla HS, Bhalani VK, Ayyathurai R, Bird VG. Construction-related differences seen in ureteral access sheaths: comparison of reinforced versus nonreinforced ureteral access sheaths. Urology. 2009;73:241–4.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Monga M, Best S, Venkatesh R, Ames C, Lieber D, Vanlangendock R, et al. Prospective randomized comparison of 2 ureteral access sheaths during flexible retrograde ureteroscopy. J Urol. 2004;172:572–3.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Pedro RN, Hendlin K, Durfee WK, Monga M. Physical characteristics of next-generation ureteral access sheaths: buckling and kinking. Urology. 2007;70:440–2.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Delvecchio FC, Auge BK, Brizuela RM, Weizer AZ, Silverstein AD, Lallas CD, Pietrow PK, Albala DM, Preminger GM. Assessment of stricture formation with the ureteral access sheath. Urology. 2003;61(3):518–22; discussion 522.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Bach T, Geavlete B, Herrmann TR, Gross AJ. Working tools in flexible ureterorenoscopy – influence on flow and deflection: what does matter? J Endourol. 2008;22:1639–43.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. 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;23:903–5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. 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;22:2227–34.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Knudsen BE, Pedro R, Hinck B, Monga M. Durability of reusable Holmium: Yag laser fibers: a multicenter study. J Urol. 2011;185:160–3.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Haberman K, Ortiz O, Chotikawanich E, Monga M. A dual channel flexible ureteroscope: in vitro evaluations of deflection flow, luminescence and resolution (abstract). J Endourol. 2010;24:PS1–13.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Ortiz-Alvarado O, Haberrman K, Chotikawanich E, Monga M. The Cobra dual-channel flexible ureteroscope: novel function, novel applications. J Endourol. 2011;25(9):1411–4.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Andonian S, Okeke Z, Smith AD. Digital ureteroscopy: the next step. J Endourol. 2008;22:603–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Shah K, Monga M, Knudsen BE. Prospective randomized trial comparing two flexible digital ureteroscopes: Gyrus ACMI/Olympus Invisio DUR-D and Olympus URF-V (abstract). J Endourol. 2010;24:PS28–28.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Multescu R, Geavlete B, Georgescu D, Geavlete P. Conventional fiberoptic flexible ureteroscope versus fourth generation digital flexible ureteroscope: a critical comparison. J Endourol. 2010;24:17–21.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Xavier K, Hruby GW, Kelly CR, Landman J, Gupta M. Clinical evaluation of efficacy of novel optically activated digital endoscope protection system against laser energy damage. Urology. 2009;73:37–40.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Garg S, Mandal AK, Singh SK, Naveen A, Ravimohan M, Aggarwal M, et al. Ureteroscopic laser lithotripsy versus ballistic lithotripsy for treatment of ureteric stones: a prospective comparative study. Urol Int. 2009;82:341–5.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Mues AC, Teichman JM, Knudsen BE. Evaluation of 24 Holmium:Yag laser optical fibers for flexible ureteroscopy. J Urol. 2009;182:348–54.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Kesler SS, Pierre SA, Brison DI, Preminger GM, Munver R. Use of the escape nitinol stone retrieval basket facilitates fragmentation and extraction of ureteral and renal calculi: a pilot study. J Endourol. 2008;22:1213–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Teichman JM, Kamerer AD. Use of the Holmium:Yag laser for the impacted stone basket. J Urol. 2000;164:1602–3.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Eisner BH, Dretler SP. Use of the stone cone for prevention of calculus retropulsion during Holmium:Yag laser lithotripsy: case series and review of the literature. Urol Int. 2009;82:356–60.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Lee HJ, Box GN, Abraham JB, Deane LA, Elchico ER, Eisner BH, et al. In vitro evaluation of nitinol urological retrieval coil and ureteral occlusion device: retropulsion and Holmium laser fragmentation efficiency. J Urol. 2008;180:969–73.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Ahmed M, Pedro RN, Kieley S, Akornor JW, Durfee WK, Monga M. Systematic evaluation of ureteral occlusion devices: Insertion, deployment, stone migration, and extraction. Urology. 2009;73:976–80.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Monga M, Hendlin K, Lee C, Anderson JK. Systematic evaluation of stone basket dimensions. Urology. 2004;63:1042–4.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Hendlin K, Lee C, Anderson JK, Monga M. Radial dilation force of tipless and helical stone baskets. J Endourol. 2004;18:946–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Lukasewycz S, Hoffman N, Botnaru A, Deka PM, Monga M. Comparison of tipless and helical baskets in an in vitro ureteral model. Urology. 2004;64:435–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Lukasewycz S, Skenazy J, Hoffman N, Kuskowski M, Hendlin K, Monga M. Comparison of nitinol tipless stone baskets in an in vitro caliceal model. J Urol. 2004;172:562–4.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Korman E, Hendlin K, Monga M. Next-generation nitinol stone baskets: radial dilation force and dynamics of opening (abstract). J Endourol. 2010;24:PS28–31.

    Google Scholar 

  33. Andonian S, Okeke Z, Anidjar M, Smith AD. Digital nephroscopy: the next step. J Endourol. 2008;22:601–2.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Gonen M, Istanbulluoglu OM, Cicek T, Ozturk B, Ozkardes H. Balloon dilatation versus Amplatz dilatation for nephrostomy tract dilatation. J Endourol. 2008;22:901–4.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Hendlin K, Monga M. Radial dilation of nephrostomy balloons: a comparative analysis. Int Braz J Urol. 2008;34:544–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Pugh JW, Canales BK. New instrumentation in percutaneous nephrolithotomy. Indian J Urol. 2010;26:389–94.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Rane A, Kommu SS, Kandaswamy SV, Rao P, Aron M, Kumar R, et al. Initial clinical evaluation of a new pneumatic intracorporeal lithotripter. BJU Int. 2007;100:629–32.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Zhu Z, Xi Q, Wang S, Liu J, Ye Z, Yu X, et al. Percutaneous nephrolithotomy for proximal ureteral calculi with severe hydronephrosis: assessment of different lithotriptors. J Endourol. 2010;24:201–5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Hoffman N, Lukasewycz SJ, Canales B, Botnaru A, Slaton JW, Monga M. Percutaneous renal stone extraction: in vitro study of retrieval devices. J Urol. 2004;172:559–61.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Surgery, Kuwait University, Jabriyah, Kuwait City, 13110, Kuwait

    Ahmed M. Al-Kandari M.D., FRCS(C)

Authors
  1. Ahmed M. Al-Kandari M.D., FRCS(C)
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ahmed M. Al-Kandari M.D., FRCS(C) .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Fac. Medicine, Dept. Surgery, Kuwait University, Safat, Kuwait

    Ahmed M. Al-Kandari

  2. , Department of Urology, Muljibhai Patel Urological Hospital, Dr Virendra Desai Road, Nadiad, 387 001, India

    Mahesh Desai

  3. , Urology and Nephrology Center, Mansoura University, Gomhoria Street, Mansoura, 35516, Egypt

    Ahmed A. Shokeir

  4. , Urology and Nephrology Center, Mansoura University, Gomhoria Street, Mansoura, 35516, Egypt

    Ahmed M. Shoma

  5. , Smith Institute for Urology, Long Island Jewish Health System, New York, 11040, USA

    Arthur D. Smith

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2013 Springer-Verlag London

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Al-Kandari, A.M. (2013). Difficulties in Instrumentation of Endourologic Procedures. In: Al-Kandari, A., Desai, M., Shokeir, A., Shoma, A., Smith, A. (eds) Difficult Cases in Endourology. Springer, London. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-84882-083-8_3

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-84882-083-8_3

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, London

  • Print ISBN: 978-1-84882-082-1

  • Online ISBN: 978-1-84882-083-8

  • eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation