Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Superiority of the EF-120-00-3F biopsy forceps in the histopathological evaluation of upper urinary tract specimens

  • Original Article
  • Published:
World Journal of Urology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

The purpose of this study was to analyze the efficacy of two different biopsy forceps with respect to their functionality and quality for histological assessment of upper urinary tract biopsies.

Methods

We compared flow rates, active deflection angle and histological quality of specimens taken from upper urinary tract biopsies of 40 consecutively treated patients between October 2011 and October 2012. Two different biopsy forceps [group A = 20 patients: “Piranha®” (Boston Scientific, Natick, USA) versus group B = 20 patients: “EF-120-00-3F” (Euromedical GmbH, Siegsdorf, GER)] were assessed.

Results

The specimens obtained with the “EF-120-00-3F” were superior in terms of tissue preservation such as intact urothelium/tissue fragmentation and the prevention of artifacts due to tissue compression (existence of artifacts/nucleus evaluation). Furthermore, due to superiority of tissue preservation, tissues obtained with the “EF-120-00-3F” showed better tissue orientation in the sense of anatomic evaluation of invasion and deep layer involvement. Irrigation flow rates did not differ significantly while deflection angle was more impaired with the “Piranha” biopsy forceps. No difference was observed with the handling of both biopsy forceps.

Conclusions

We conclude that the “EF-120-00-3F” biopsy forceps represent a valuable modification of antegradely insertable instruments that qualifies for improved and correct staging as well as diagnosis of upper urinary specimens in comparison with standard biopsy forcipes.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Munoz JJ, Ellison LM (2000) Upper tract urothelial neoplasms: incidence and survival during the last 2 decades. J Urol 164(5):1523–1525

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Siegel R, Naishadham D, Jemal A (2012) Cancer statistics. CA Cancer J Clin 62(1):10–29. doi:10.3322/caac.20138

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Harada H, Seki T, Togashi M, Maruyama S, Tateno M, Takahashi A, Sato H, Hirano T (2004) Squamous metaplasia mimicking papillary carcinoma in the upper urinary tract. Hokkaido Igaku Zasshi 79(1):15–17

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Vashistha V, Shabsigh A, Zynger DL (2013) Utility and diagnostic accuracy of ureteroscopic biopsy in upper tract urothelial carcinoma. Arch Pathol Lab Med 137(3):400–407. doi:10.5858/arpa.2012-0136-OA

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Van Der Molen AJ, Cowan NC, Mueller-Lisse UG, Nolte-Ernsting CC, Takahashi S, Cohan RH (2008) CT urography: definition, indications and techniques. A guideline for clinical practice. Eur Radiol 18(1):4–17. doi:10.1007/s00330-007-0792-x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Wang LJ, Wong YC, Chuang CK, Huang CC, Pang ST (2009) Diagnostic accuracy of transitional cell carcinoma on multidetector computerized tomography urography in patients with gross hematuria. J Urol 181 (2):524–531 (discussion 531). doi:10.1016/j.juro.2008.10.024

    Google Scholar 

  7. Brien JC, Shariat SF, Herman MP, Ng CK, Scherr DS, Scoll B, Uzzo RG, Wille M, Eggener SE, Terrell JD, Lucas SM, Lotan Y, Boorjian SA, Raman JD (2010) Preoperative hydronephrosis, ureteroscopic biopsy grade and urinary cytology can improve prediction of advanced upper tract urothelial carcinoma. J Urol 184(1):69–73. doi:10.1016/j.juro.2010.03.030

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Lee KS, Zeikus E, DeWolf WC, Rofsky NM, Pedrosa I (2010) MR urography versus retrograde pyelography/ureteroscopy for the exclusion of upper urinary tract malignancy. Clin Radiol 65(3):185–192. doi:10.1016/j.crad.2009.11.003

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Keeley FX, Kulp DA, Bibbo M, McCue PA, Bagley DH (1997) Diagnostic accuracy of ureteroscopic biopsy in upper tract transitional cell carcinoma. J Urol 157(1):33–37

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Williams SK, Denton KJ, Minervini A, Oxley J, Khastigir J, Timoney AG, Keeley FX Jr (2008) Correlation of upper-tract cytology, retrograde pyelography, ureteroscopic appearance, and ureteroscopic biopsy with histologic examination of upper-tract transitional cell carcinoma. J Endourol 22(1):71–76. doi:10.1089/end.2007.9853

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Bach T, Geavlete B, Herrmann TR, Gross AJ (2008) Working tools in flexible ureterorenoscopy–influence on flow and deflection: what does matter? J Endourol 22(8):1639–1643. doi:10.1089/end.2008.0184

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Herrmann TR, Bach T, Imkamp F, Tezval H, Klot C, Jonas U, Gross AJ, Burchardt M (2007) FlexGuard: a new laser insertion sheath: functional aspects in ureterorenoscopy (URS). World J Urol 25(3):269–273. doi:10.1007/s00345-007-0176-5

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Michel MS, Knoll T, Ptaschnyk T, Kohrmann KU, Alken P (2002) Flexible ureterorenoscopy for the treatment of lower pole calyx stones: influence of different lithotripsy probes and stone extraction tools on scope deflection and irrigation flow. Eur Urol 41 (3):312–316 (discussion 316–317)

    Google Scholar 

  14. Herrmann TR, Bach T, Imkamp F, von Klot C, Tezval H, Nagele U, Burchardt M, Oelke M, Gross AJ (2010) Insertion sheaths prevent breakage of flexible ureteroscopes due to laser fiber passage: a video-endoluminal study of the working channel. J Endourol 24(11):1747–1751. doi:10.1089/end.2009.0298

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Bach T, Herrmann TR, Gross AJ (2012) Radiopaque laser fiber for holmium: yttrium–aluminum–garnet laser lithotripsy: critical evaluation. J Endourol 26(6):722–725. doi:10.1089/end2011.0290

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Huguet J (2012) Transitional cell carcinoma of the upper urinary tract after cystectomy. Arch Esp Urol 65(2):227–236

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Lughezzani G, Burger M, Margulis V, Matin SF, Novara G, Roupret M, Shariat SF, Wood CG, Zigeuner R (2012) Prognostic factors in upper urinary tract urothelial carcinomas: a comprehensive review of the current literature. Eur Urol 62(1):100–114. doi:10.1016/j.eururo.2012.02.030

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Ritter M, Bolenz C, Bach T, Strobel P, Hacker A (2012) Standardized ex vivo comparison of different upper urinary tract biopsy devices: impact on ureterorenoscopes and tissue quality. World J Urol. doi:10.1007/s00345-012-0854-9

    Google Scholar 

  19. Wason SE, Seigne JD, Schned AR, Pais VM Jr (2012) Ureteroscopic biopsy of upper tract urothelial carcinoma using a novel ureteroscopic biopsy forceps. Can J Urol 19(6):6560–6565

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Urology and Urological Oncology, Hannover Medical School, Hannover, Germany

    Mario W. Kramer, Mohammad Kabbani, Florian Imkamp, Stephan Jutzi, Christoph von Klot, Axel S. Merseburger, Markus A. Kuczyk & Thomas R. Herrmann

  2. Institute of Pathology, Hannover Medical School, Hannover, Germany

    Mahmoud Abbas, Jan Becker & Hans H. Kreipe

  3. Department of Urology and Andrology, TILAK General Hospital Hall, Hall in Tirol, Austria

    Udo Nagele

  4. Department of Urology, Asklepios Hospital Harburg, Hamburg, Germany

    Thorsten Bach

Authors
  1. Mario W. Kramer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Mahmoud Abbas
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Mohammad Kabbani
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Florian Imkamp
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Udo Nagele
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Thorsten Bach
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Stephan Jutzi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Christoph von Klot
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Jan Becker
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  10. Axel S. Merseburger
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  11. Markus A. Kuczyk
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  12. Hans H. Kreipe
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  13. Thomas R. Herrmann
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Mario W. Kramer.

Additional information

Mario W. Kramer and Mahmoud Abbas have contributed equally to this manuscript.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Kramer, M.W., Abbas, M., Kabbani, M. et al. Superiority of the EF-120-00-3F biopsy forceps in the histopathological evaluation of upper urinary tract specimens. World J Urol 32, 931–938 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-013-1221-1

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-013-1221-1

Keywords

Search

Navigation