Advertisement

Navigation in Endourology, Ureteroscopy

  • Kenji Yoshida
  • Seiji Naito
  • Tadashi MatsudaEmail author
Chapter

Abstract

Novice urologists sometimes lose their orientation in patients with complicated pyelocaliceal shapes. Controlling a flexible ureteroscope with skill requires a great deal of time and effort and also requires a certain level of expertise. With recent engineering technological advances, there are few reports of real-time navigation system for accurate access to the upper urinary collecting system via percutaneous approach. In this section, we introduce our experimental ureteroscopic navigation system that uses a magnetic tracking device and evaluate the accuracy of ureteroscopic maneuvers in a three-dimensional (3D) pyelocaliceal system model. Our system could help surgeons with different levels to observe all renal papillaethereby by showing surgeons the real-time tip position of ureteroscope on the navigation image. In this section, we introduce our experimental model of ureteroscopic navigation system (ex vivo) using a magnetic tracking device. This concept may lead to increase the detection rate of upper urinary pathologies and the accuracy of surgical procedures. However, there are several challenges to overcome before clinical use, such as adding a built-in magnetic sensor at the tip of the flexible ureteroscope, overcoming pyelocaliceal intraoperative deformation (expansion and contraction) caused during saline irrigation and movements in kidney position with respiration.

Keywords

Ureteroscopy Navigation system Skill analysis 

References

  1. Agenant M, Noordmans HJ, Koomen W, et al. Real-time bladder lesion registration and navigation: a phantom study. PLoS One. 2013;8:e54348.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Andonian S, Atalla MA. Radiation safety in urology. AUA Update Series. 2009;28:lesson 26.Google Scholar
  3. Atsumi H, Matsumae M, Hirayama A, et al. Newly developed electromagnetic tracked flexible neuroendoscpe—technical note. Neurol Med Chir. 2011;51:611–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bergen T, Wittenberg T. Stitching and surface reconstruction from endoscopic image sequences: a review of applications and methods. IEEE J Biomed Health Inform. 2016;20:304–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Buscarini M, Conlin M. Update on flexible ureteroscopy. Urol Int. 2008;80:1–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Chow GK, Patterson DE, Blute ML, JW S. Ureteroscopy: effect of technology and technique on clinical practice. J Urol. 2003;170:99–102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Greene DJ, Tenggadjaja CF, Bowman RJ, et al. Comparison of a reduced radiation fluoroscopy protocol to conventional fluoroscopy during uncomplicated ureteroscopy. Urology. 2011;78:286–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Hamacher A, Kim SJ, Cho ST, et al. Application of virtual, augmented, and mixed reality to urology. Int Neurourol J. 2016;20:172–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Hsi RS, Harper JD. Fluoroless ureteroscopy: zero-dose fluoroscopy during ureteroscopic treatment of urinary-tract calculi. J Endourol. 2013;27:432–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Hughes-Hallet A, Mayer EK, Marcus HJ, et al. Augmented reality partial nephrectomy: examining the current status and future perspective. Urology. 2014;83:266–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Humphreys MR, Miller NL, Williams JC Jr, et al. A new world revealed: early experience with digital ureteroscopy. J Urol. 2008;179:970–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Kokorowski PJ, Chow JS, Strauss KJ, et al. Prospective systematic intervention to reduce patient exposure to radiation during pediatric ureteroscopy. J Urol. 2013;190(suppl4):1474–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Lanchon C, Custillon G, Moreau-Gaudry A, et al. Augmented reality using transurethral ultrasound for laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: preclinical evaluation. J Urol. 2016;196:244–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Lima E, Rodrigues P, Mota P, et al. Ureteroscopy-assisted percutaneous kidney access made easy: first clinical experience with a novel navigation system using electromagnetic guidance (IDEAL stage 1). Eur Urol. 2017;72(4):610–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Matsuda T. Recent advances in urologic laparoscopic surgeries: laparoendoscopic single-site surgery, natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery, robotics and navigation. Asian J Endosc Surg. 2013;6(2):68–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Rassweilera J, Mullerb M, Fangeraub M, et al. iPad-assisted percutaneous access to the kidney using marker-based navigation: initial clinical experience. Eur Urol. 2012;61:627–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Simpfendorfer T, Baumhauer M, Muller M, et al. Augmented reality visualization during laparoscopic radical prostatectomy. J Endourol. 2011;25:1841–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Simpfendorfer T, Gasch C, Hatiboglu G, et al. Intraoperative computed tomography imaging for navigated laparoscopic renal surgery: first clinical experience. J Endourol. 2016;30:1105–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Ukimura O, Gill IS. Imaging-assisted endoscopic surgery: Cleveland Clinic experience. J Endourol. 2008;22:803–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Ukimura O, Gross ME, de C, Abreu AL, et al. A novel technique using three-dimensionally documented biopsy mapping allows precise re-visiting of prostate cancer foci with serial surveillance of cell cycle progression gene panel. Prostate. 2015a;75:863–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Ukimura O, Marien A, Palmer S, et al. Trans-rectal ultrasound visibility of prostate lesions identified by magnetic resonance imaging increases accuracy of image-fusion targeted biopsies. World J Urol. 2015b;33:1669–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Weld LR, Nwoye UO, Knight RB, et al. Safety, minimization and awareness radiation training reduces fluoroscopy time during unilateral ureteroscopy. Urology. 2014;84:520–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Weld LR, Nwoye UO, Knight RB, et al. Fluoroscopy time during uncomplicated unilateral ureteroscopy for urolithiasis decreases with urology resident experience. World J Urol. 2015;33:119–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Yoshida K, Kawa G, Taniguchi H, et al. Novel ureteroscopic navigation system with a magnetic tracking device: a preliminary ex vivo evaluation. J Endourol. 2014;28:1053–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Yoshida K, Yokomizo A, Matsuda T, et al. The advantage of a ureteroscopic navigation system with magnetic tracking in comparison with simulated fluoroscopy in a phantom study. J Endourol. 2015;29:1059–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Urology and AndrologyKansai Medical UniversityOsakaJapan
  2. 2.Department of UrologyHarasanshin HospitalFukuokaJapan

Personalised recommendations