Advertisement

World Journal of Urology

, Volume 34, Issue 9, pp 1303–1309 | Cite as

A comparison between an in vitro ureteroscopic stone size estimation and the stone size measurement with the help of a scale on stone baskets

  • Jens Cordes
  • Lisa Teske
  • Felix Nguyen
  • Wolfhard Pinkowski
  • Karl-Dietrich Sievert
  • Reinhard Vonthein
Original Article

Abstract

Introduction

Endoscopic treatment of ureter stones and renal calculi relies on the surgeon’s estimation of the stone size for both lithotripsy and removal of stones or stone fragments. We therefore compared precision and reliability of the endoscopic estimation of stone size by the surgeon with measurements on a scale on a stone basket.

Materials and methods

Two surgeons (one high experienced and one low experienced) first estimated, then measured the size of 12 stones differing in size and color using different stone baskets (2.5, 3.0, 4.0 Ch) each via a semirigid renoscope in an artificial ureter under water repeatedly on two different days. All together, we had 288 measurements and 288 estimations.

Results

On the whole, the accuracy of the estimation diminished with bigger stones. There is an increasing underestimation with increasing stone size. Factors, which significantly influence the estimation, are the operating surgeon, the color of the stone, the time sequence, and the size of the closed basket, which was held beside the stone. The accuracy of the measurement of the stone baskets is not as good as the estimation. The small 2.5-Ch basket is the most accurate in measuring big stones (>6 mm), the 3.5 Ch in intermediate stones (3–6 mm), the big basket (4.0 Ch) in small stones (<3 mm).

Conclusion

This first attempt at validation of a scale on stone baskets shows different results for each basket which could be systematically improved. Until now, the estimation of the surgeons is better than the measurement, but it is also influenced by factors like the surgeon or the color of the stone.

Keywords

Stone size estimation Endourology Stone basket 

Notes

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

None.

References

  1. 1.
    Preminger GM, Tiselius HG, Assimos DG, Alken P, Buck AC, Gallucci M, Knoll T, Lingeman JE, Nakada SY, Pearle MS, Sarica K, Türk C, Wolf JS Jr (2007) Guideline for the management of ureteral calculi. Eur Urol 52(6):1610–1631CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Breda A, Ogunyemi O, Leppert JT, Lam JS, Schulam PG (2008) Flexible ureteroscopy and laser lithotripsy for single intrarenal stones 2 cm or greater—is this the new frontier. J Urol 179(3):981–984CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Abdelrahim AF, Abdelmaguid A, Abuzeid H, Amin M, Mousa ES, Abdelrahim F (2008) Rigid ureteroscopy for ureteral stones: factors associated with intraoperative adverse events. J Endourol 22:277–280CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Cordes J, Nguyen F, Pinkowski W, Jocham D (2013) Measurement of stone diameter with three sizes of automatically fixating stone baskets. Open J Urol 3:58–61CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Cordes J, Lange B, Jocham D, Kausch I (2011) Destruction of stone extraction basket during an in vitro lithotripsy: a comparision of four lithotripters. J Endourol 25(1–4):58–61Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Treisman A (1996) The binding problem. Curr Opin Neurobiol 6:171–178CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Masahiko M, Shigemitsu M, Hiromi M (2010) Attribute pair-based visual recognition and memory. PLoS ONE 5:e9571CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Stoeckel D (2001) Umformung von NiTi-Legierungen - Einen Herausforderung. Neuere Entwicklungen in der Massivumformung Siegert K (Hrsg.) 141–157Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Patel N, Chew B, Knudsen B, Lipkin M, Wenzler D, Sur RL (2014) Accuracy of endoscopic intraoperative assessment of urologic stone size. J Endourol 28:582–586CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Urology Clinic and Policlinic, University Medical Center Schleswig–Holstein (UKSH), Campus LübeckUniversity of LübeckLübeckGermany
  2. 2.Urotech GmbHRohrdorfGermany
  3. 3.Institute of Medical Biometry and Statistics, University Medical Center Schleswig–Holstein (UKSH), Campus LübeckUniversity of LübeckLübeckGermany
  4. 4.Center for Clinical TrialsUniversity of LübeckLübeckGermany

Personalised recommendations