Advertisement

Ureteroscopy pp 111-126 | Cite as

Flexible Ureteroscopes: Fiberoptic and Digital

  • Vincent G. BirdEmail author
Chapter
Part of the Current Clinical Urology book series (CCU)

Abstract

Ureteroscopes have undergone a significant evolutionary course in terms of both concept and design. The earliest flexible ureteroscopes were used only for diagnostic purposes. With subsequent addition of working channels, ureteroscopes were used in a more active and therapeutic role. Limitations of semirigid ureteroscopes revealed that an ureteroscope with an articulating/deflecting nature would be required for navigation of more proximal renal and otherwise tortuous anatomy. With smaller caliber and combined deflective mechanisms, currently available flexible ureteroscopes can now generally be advanced into all portions of the kidney and its associated calcyceal anatomy for treatment of a number of pathologies.

A thorough understanding of the construction of the flexible ureteroscope is critical in understanding how to properly use these instruments, in terms of understanding their capabilities, limitations, optimization of use, and their care, as these instruments, due to their small caliber and fragile nature, are prone to damage.

Critical elements for successful construction of modern-day working flexible ureteroscopes include ability to acquire and transmit an image, ability to transmit or produce light sufficient for imaging, functional working channels for use of ancillary devices, adequate channel capacity for irrigation, ability to have active control maneuverability of the scope, and small shaft caliber. Though digital flexible ureteroscopes have a different operative paradigm in terms of optics and image production, many mechanical and structural features of these ureteroscopes remain quite similar to their fiberoptic counterparts.

Despite widespread use, there has been concern that fiberoptic ureteroscopes tend to have a grainy image, water may leak into the lens, and fibers may burn out and fracture, resulting in loss of image quality. The key paradigm change with digital flexible ureteroscopes is the “chip on the tip design,” where an image is picked up, at times processed, and then transmitted by a digital sensor, and sent to a proximal point a single wire, where further processing and transmission take place. This arrangement bypasses the fragile optical fiber system of conventional fiberoptic flexible ureteroscopes.

Though fiberoptic ureteroscopes are being replaced with their digital counterparts, a thorough understanding of these earlier ureteroscopes is important in that studies of these ureteroscopes reveal a number of issues that impact the use and durability of ureteroscopes in a large number of ways. It is likely that such findings will also facilitate improvements in digital flexible ureteroscopes.

Many parameters of flexible ureteroscopes have been compared in a variety of fashions. Review of these investigations lends further understanding into the features and limitations of these ureteroscopes, in terms of working parameters (optical/mechanical) and overall durability. There are few all-inclusive direct comparison studies. Durability studies are of importance in that costs of damage and maintenance factor significantly into overall cost of ureteroscopy. As digital ureteroscopes have only more relatively recently been introduced into more regular use, data regarding outcome with them, using a number of assessment parameters, will be forthcoming in the near future.

Though experience to date with digital flexible ureteroscopes is limited, they have been received quite favorably. They have notably improved image quality, a brighter image, are lightweight, and likely cause less operator-related fatigue. Digital ureteroscopes carry the immediate promise of better optics and visualization, but only further experience will dictate to what degree they address other shortcomings that exist beyond those of optics, namely, in terms of working channel parameters, reliable/user-friendly deflective mechanisms, and durability.

Keywords

Laser Fiber Complementary Metal Oxide Semiconductor Small Caliber Flexible Ureteroscopes Ureteral Access Sheath 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. 1.
    Young HH, Mckay RW. Congenital valvular obstruction of the prostatic urethra. Surg Gynecol Obstet. 1929;48:509.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Marshall VF. Fiberoptics in urology. J Urol. 1964;91:110–4.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Aso Y, Takayasu H, Ohta N, Tajima A. Flexible ureterorenoscopy. Urol Clin North Am. 1988;15:329–38.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Parkin J, Keeley Jr FX, Timoney AG. Flexible ureteroscope: a user’s guide. BJU Int. 2002;90:640–3.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    El-Hakim A, Tan BJ, Smith AD. Ureteroscopy: technical aspects. In: Stoller ML, Meng MV, editors. Urinary stone disease. Totowa: Humana press; 2007. p. 589–607.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Grasso M, Bagley D. Small diameter, actively deflectable, flexible ureteropyleoscopy. J Urol. 1998;160(5):1648–53.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Johnston WK. Epochs in endourology: the birth of fiber optics from “light guiding”. J Endourol. 2004;18(5):425–6.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Hecht J. City of lights: the story of fiberoptics. New York: Oxford University Press; 1999. p. 13–27. 60–75.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Colladon D. On the reflections of a ray of light inside a parabolic liquid stream. Compt Rend. 1842;15:800.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Babinet J. Note on the transmission of light by sinous channels. Compt Rend. 1842;15:802.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Tyndall J. On some phenomena connected with the motion of liquids. Proc R Inst Great Britain. 1854;1:446.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Hirschowitz BI, Curtiss LE, Peters CW, et al. Demonstration of a new gastroscope, the fiberscope. Gastroenterology. 1958;35:50.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Chiu KY, Cai Y, Marcovich R, et al. Comparison of the mechanical, flow, and optical properties of contemporary flexible ureteroscopes. Urology. 2003;62(5):800–4.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Andonian S, Okeke Z, Smith AD. Digital ureteroscopy: the next step. J Endourol. 2008;22(4):603–5.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Sidorov DN, Kokaram AC. Suppression of moiré patterns via spectral analysis. In: Jay Kuo C-C, editors. Visual communications and image processing. Proceedings of the society of Photographic Instrumentation Engineers. vol. 4671; 2002. p. 895.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Hudson RG, Conlin MJ, Bagley DH. Ureteric access with flexible ureteroscopes: effect of the size of the ureteroscope. BJU Int. 2005;95:1043–4.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Bach T, Geavlete B, Hermann TRW, et al. Working tools in flexible ureterorenoscopy-influence on flow and deflection: what does matter? J Endourol. 2008;22(8):1639–43.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Natalin RA, Landman J. Where next for the endoscope? Nat Rev Urol. 2009;6:622–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Boyle WS, Smith GS. Charge coupled semiconductor devices. Bell Syst Tech J. 1970;49:587–93.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Damerell CJS, Farley FJM, Gillman AR, et al. Charge-coupled devices or particle detection with high spatial resolution. Nucl Instrum Methods. 1981;185:33–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Golden JP, Ligler FS. A comparison of imaging methods for use in an array biosensor. Biosens Bioelectron. 2002;17:719–25.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Nagele U, Horstmann M, Hennenlotter J, et al. Size does matter: 1.5 Fr stone baskets almost double irrigation flow during flexible ureteroscopy compared to 1.9 Fr stone baskets. Urol Res. 2006;34:389–92.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Bach T, Netsch C, Herrmann TRW, et al. Objective assessment of working tool impact on irrigation flow and visibility in flexible ureterorenoscopes. J Endourol. 2011;25(7):1125–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Kruck S, Anastasiadis AG, Gakis G, et al. Flow matters: irrigation flow differs in flexible ureteroscopes of the newest generation. Urol Res. 2011;39(6):483–6.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Haberman KH, Ortiz-Alvarado O, Chotikawanich E, et al. A dual-channel flexible ureteroscope: evaluation of deflection, flow, illumination, and optics. J Endourol. 2011;25(9):1411–4.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Monga M, Weiland D, Pedro RN, et al. Intrarenal manipulation of flexible ureteroscopes: a comparative study. BJU Int. 2007;100:157–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Ankem MK, Lowry PS, Slovick RW, et al. Clinical utility of dual active deflection flexible ureteroscope during upper tract ureteropyeloscopy. Urology. 2004;64:430–4.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Sung JC, Springhart WP, Marguet CG, et al. Location and etiology of flexible and semirigid ureteroscope damage. Urology. 2005;66(5):958–63.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Afane JS, Olweny EO, Bercowsky E, et al. Flexible ureteroscopes: a single center evaluation of the durability and function of the new ureteroscopes smaller than 9Fr. J Urol. 2000;164:1164–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    User HM, Hua V, Blunt LW, et al. Performance and durability of leading flexible ureteroscopes. J Endourol. 2004;18:735–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Monga M, Best S, Venkatesh R, Ame C, et al. Durability of flexible ureteroscopes: a randomized prospective study. J Urol. 2006;176:137–41.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Carey RI, Gomez CS, Maurici G, et al. Frequency of ureteroscope damage at a tertiary care center. J Urol. 2006;176:607–10.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Traxer O, Dubosq F, Jamali K, et al. New-generation flexible ureteroscopes are more durable than previous ones. Urology. 2006;68(2):276–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Knudsen B, Miyaoka R, Shah K, et al. Durability of the next-generation flexible fiberoptic ureteroscopes: a randomized prospective multi-institutional trial. Urology. 2010;75(3):534–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Al-Qahtani SM, Geavlette BP, de Medina GS, et al. The new Olympus digital flexible ureteroscope (URF-V): initial experience. Urol Ann. 2011;3(3):133–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Pietrow PK, Auge BK, Delvecchio FC, et al. Techniques to maximize flexible ureteroscopy longetevity. Urology. 2002;60(5):784–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Busby JE, Low RK. Ureteroscopic treatment of renal calculi. Urol Clin North Am. 2004;31:89–98.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Kourambas J, Byrne RR, Preminger GM. Does a ureteral access sheath facilitate ureteroscopy? J Urol. 2001;165:789–93.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Seto C, Ishiura Y, Egawa M. Durability of working channel in flexible ureteroscopes when inserting ureteroscopic devices. J Endourol. 2006;20:223–6.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Chew BH. Durability of the next-generation flexible fiberoptic ureteroscopes: a randomized prospective multi-institutional trial. Editorial reply. Urology. 2010;75(3):538.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Benito J, Abraham A, Corollas S, et al. Effects of Steris 1TM sterilization and Cidex® ortho-phthalaldehyde high-level disinfection on durability of new generation Flexible ureteroscopes. J Endourol. 2007;21(9):985–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Healy KA, Pak RW, Cleary RC, et al. Hand problems among endourologists. J Endourol. 2011;25:1915–20.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Ingram JN, Kording KP, Howard IS, et al. The statistics of natural hand movements. Exp Brain Res. 2008;188:223–36.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Pearlman JL, Roach SS, Valero-Cuevas FJ, et al. The fundamental thumb-tip force vectors produced by the muscle of the thumb. J Orthop Res. 2004;22:306–12.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Humphreys M, Miller NL, Williams JC, et al. A new world revealed: early experience with digital ureteroscopy. J Urol. 2008;179:970–5.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Castellanos JAC. SolidFlex™—the fourth generation in endoscopy. Arch Esp Urol. 2009;62(7):573–9.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Bansal H, Swain S, Sharma GK, et al. Polyscope: a new era in flexible ureteroscopy. J Endourol. 2011;25(2):317–21.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Minimally Invasive Surgery Division, Urology DepartmentUniversity of Florida College of MedicineGainesvilleUSA
  2. 2.Minimally Invasive Surgery Division, Urology Department, Shand’s HospitalUniversity of FloridaGainesvilleUSA

Personalised recommendations