Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Evaluation of a new disposable flexible ureterorenoscope and comparison to an established disposable flexible ureterorenoscope: a prospective, observational study

  • Urology - Original Paper
  • Published:
International Urology and Nephrology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

To objectively and subjectively assess the performance and surgical outcomes of the new Innovex EU-scope™ single-use digital flexible ureteroscope (fURS).

Methods

A prospective cohort study was carried out (August 2019 to May 2020). The new single-use fURS (Innovex Medical Devices Co. Shanghai, China) was analysed with regard to visibility, manoeuvrability, laser interference and overall performance using a validated Likert scale. Outcomes are compared to the LithoVue™ (Boston Scientific, Marlborough, MA).

Results

One hundred patients were included in this study. 50 cases underwent retrograde fURS using the Innovex EU-scope™ and 50 with the LithoVue™. There were no differences in the patient demographics data, or operative data between the two groups. The Innovex EU-scope™ scored higher visibility scores compared to the LithoVue™, median 4, interquartile range (IQR) (4–4), vs. 3.5, IQR (3–5), p = 0.5086. Both scopes had similar manoeuvrability scores. The Innovex EU-scope™ scored significantly lower with regard to comfort compared to the LithoVue, median 4 IQR (3–4) vs. 4.5 IQR (4–5), p = 0.0445. Whereas, laser interference, affected the Innovex much less than the LithoVue™. Both scopes scored well for overall performance. The median overall performance score for the Innovex was 4 IQR (4–4) vs. 4 IQR (4–5).

Conclusions

This Innovex EU-scope™ has good objective and subjective visibility and manoeuvrability profiles. This single-use flexible ureteroscope may achieve similar clinical outcomes to an established single use instrument.

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

Similar content being viewed by others

Data availability

Available on request.

References

  1. Bagley DH (1987) Flexible ureteropyeloscopy with modular, “disposable” endoscope. Urology 29:296–300

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Mues AC, Teichman JM, Knudsen BE (2009) Evaluation of 24 holmium:YAG laser optical fibers for flexible ureteroscopy. J Urol 182:348–354

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Shah K, Monga M, Knudsen B (2015) Prospective randomized trial comparing 2 flexible digital ureteroscopes: ACMI/Olympus InvisioDUR-D and Olympus URF-V. Urology 85:1267–1271

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Knudsen B, Miyaoka R, Shah K et al (2010) Durability of the next-generation flexible fiberoptic ureteroscopes: a randomized prospective multi-institutional clinical trial. Urology 75:534–538

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Monga M, Best S, Venkatesh R et al (2006) Durability of flexible ureteroscopes: a randomized, prospective study. J Urol 176:137–141

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Hennessey DB, Fojecki GL, Papa NP, Lawrentschuk N, Bolton D (2018) Single-use disposable digital flexible ureteroscopes: an ex vivo assessment and cost analysis. BJU Int 121(Suppl 3):55–61

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Tom WR, Wollin DA, Jiang R et al (2017) Next-generation single-use ureteroscopes: an in vitro comparison. J Endourol 31:1301–1306

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Bader MJ, Gratzke C, Walther S et al (2010) The PolyScope: a modular design, semidisposable flexible ureterorenoscope system. J Endourol 24:1061–1066

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Emiliani E, Mercade A, Millan F, Sanchez-Martin F, Konstantinidis CA, Angerri O (2018) First clinical evaluation of the new single-use flexible and semirigid Pusenureteroscopes. Cent Eur J Urol 71:208–213

    Google Scholar 

  10. Proietti S, Dragos L, Molina W, Doizi S, Giusti G, Traxer O (2016) Comparison of new single-use digital flexible ureteroscope versus nondisposablefiber optic and digital ureteroscope in a cadaveric model. J Endourol 30:655–659

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Dale J, Kaplan AG, Radvak D et al (2017) Evaluation of a novel single-use flexible ureteroscope. J Endourol. https://doi.org/10.1089/end.2016.0237

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Kam J, Yuminaga Y, Beattie K et al (2019) Single use versus reusable digital flexible ureteroscopes: a prospective comparative study. Int J Urol 26:999–1005

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Doizi S, Kamphuis G, Giusti G et al (2017) First clinical evaluation of a new single-use flexible ureteroscope (LithoVue): a European prospective multicentric feasibility study. World J Urol 35:809–818

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Ogreden E, Oguz U, Demirelli E et al (2016) Categorization of ureteroscopy complications and investigation of associated factors by using the modified Clavien classification system. Turk J Med Sci 46:686–694

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Rukin NJ, Siddiqui ZA, Chedgy ECP, Somani BK (2017) Trends in upper tract stone disease in england: evidence from the hospital episodes statistics database. Urol Int 98:391–396

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Ordon M, Urbach D, Mamdani M, Saskin R, Honey RJ, Pace KT (2015) A population based study of the changing demographics of patients undergoing definitive treatment for kidney stone disease. J Urol 193:869–874

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Wendt-Nordahl G, Mut T, Krombach P, Michel MS, Knoll T (2011) Do new generation flexible ureterorenoscopes offer a higher treatment success than their predecessors? Urol Res 39:185–188

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Talso M, Goumas IK, Kamphuis GM et al (2019) Reusable flexible ureterorenoscopes are more cost-effective than single-use scopes: results of a systematic review from PETRA Uro-group. Transl Androl Urol 8:S418–S425

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Urology, Mercy University Hospital, Cork, Ireland

    Kenneth Patterson, Lee Chien Yap, Mutaz Elamin, Eoin Maccraith, Muheilan Muheilan, Ashraf Sharif, Gerard McGuinness, Ciaran Brady & Derek Hennessey

  2. Department of Urology, University Hospital Galway, Galway, Ireland

    Frank Darcy

Authors
  1. Kenneth Patterson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Lee Chien Yap
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Mutaz Elamin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Eoin Maccraith
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Muheilan Muheilan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Ashraf Sharif
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Gerard McGuinness
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Frank Darcy
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Ciaran Brady
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  10. Derek Hennessey
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

DH and KP created the report concept, performed data analysis and wrote the initial manuscript. KP and FD performed data collection. DH and KP performed literature review. MH, LCY, ME, KP, and KB guided the scope and approach of the study and refined the manuscript. DH performed statistical analyses. All authors refined the final manuscript, and agree to be accountable for all aspects of the work.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Kenneth Patterson.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they do not have any conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

Local approval obtained.

Informed consent

Obtained for all participants.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Patterson, K., Yap, L.C., Elamin, M. et al. Evaluation of a new disposable flexible ureterorenoscope and comparison to an established disposable flexible ureterorenoscope: a prospective, observational study. Int Urol Nephrol 53, 875–881 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11255-020-02727-0

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11255-020-02727-0

Keywords

Search

Navigation