Advertisement

Lasers in Medical Science

, Volume 30, Issue 5, pp 1565–1568 | Cite as

What effect do different 200 μm laser fibres have on deflection and irrigation flow rates in a flexible ureterorenoscope?

  • Anna E. WrightEmail author
  • Kevin Williams
  • Nicholas J. Rukin
Original Article

Abstract

The objective of the study is to evaluate the reduction in flow and scope deflection of four leading 200-μm marketed laser fibres (Boston Scientific Flexiva™ 200, Boston Scientific Flexiva™ Trac Tip 200, Lumenis SlimLine™ EZ200 and Optical Integrity ScopeSafe™) via a flexible ureterorenoscope. A laboratory-based bench test was performed using a Flex X2™ flexible ureterorenoscope. Mean upward/downward deflection angles and flow rates (ml/min) for each fibre were calculated and compared to a control. The Optical Integrity ScopeSafe™ fibre has the least loss of deflection, losing only 8 % upward and 6 % downward deflection. Deflection loss was significantly less with this fibre compared to all other fibres (p < 0.0001). Mean flow rates were significantly greater with the Optical Integrity ScopeSafe™ laser fibre at 23 ml/min (p < 0.0001). Despite all fibres marketed as 200 μm, the deflection and flow properties show marked variations. The Optical Integrity ScopeSafe™ 200-μm laser fibre offers the best overall performance with significantly improved flow rates and the least loss of scope deflection.

Keywords

Deflection Fibre Flow Laser Ureterorenoscopy 

Notes

Acknowledgments

The authors declare no competing financial interests. The manuscript does not contain clinical studies or patient data

Conflict of interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests

References

  1. 1.
    Turk C, Knoll T, Petrik, et al (2014) Guidelines on urolithiasis. EAUGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Aboumarzouk OM, Monga M, Kata SG et al (2012) Flexible ureteroscopy and laser lithotripsy for stones >2 cm: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Endourol 26(10):1257–1263PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Al-Qahtani SM, Gil-deiz-de-Medina S, Traxer O (2012) Predictors of clinical outcomes of flexible ureterorenoscopy with Holmium laser for renal stone greater than 2 cm. Advances in Urology: 543537. doi: 10.1155/2012/543537
  4. 4.
    Turney BW, Reynard JM, Noble JG et al (2012) Trends in urological stone disease. BJUI 109(7):1082–1087CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Wiesenthal JD, Ghiculete D, D’A Honey RJ et al (2011) A comparison of treatment modalities for renal calculi between 100 and 300 mm2: are shockwave lithotripsy, ureteroscopy, and percutaneous nephrolithotomy equivalent? J Endourol 25:481–485PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Grasso M, Conlin M, Bagley D (1998) Retrograde ureteropyeloscopic treatment of 2cm or greater upper urinary tract and minor staghorn calculi. J Urol 160:346–351PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Breda A, Ogunyemi O, Leppert JT et al (2008) Flexible ureteroscopy and laser lithotripsy for single intrarenal stones 2 cm or greater—is this the new frontier? J Urol 179(3):981–984PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Shah HN (2008) Retrograde intrarenal surgery for lower pole renal calculi smaller than one centimetre. Indian J Urol 24(4):544–550PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Kronenberg P, Traxer O (2013) The truth about laser fibre diameters. Abstract E60. 2nd Meeting of the EAU Section of Urolithiasis (EULIS). September 5-7, Copenhagen, DenmarkGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag London 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Anna E. Wright
    • 1
    Email author
  • Kevin Williams
    • 1
  • Nicholas J. Rukin
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Urological SurgeryThe Royal Wolverhampton HospitalWolverhamptonUK

Personalised recommendations