World journal of urology · 2026
Multimodal comparison of 19 single-use flexible ureteroscopes: bench testing, operative video assessment, and surgeon ratings.
СтатьяСравнительное исследованиеНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Demirkıran Engin Denizhan, Menozzi Massimo, Ventimiglia Eugenio, Pini Giovanalberto, Bozzini Giorgio, Perri Davide
Аннотация
PURPOSE: Single-use flexible ureteroscopes (fURSs) differ substantially in optical and mechanical properties, yet comparative evidence remains limited. We performed a multimodal in vitro and clinical assessment of 19 commercially available single-use fURSs to quantify performance variability and examine which device characteristics are associated with surgeon-reported usability.
METHODS: Each of 19 models was bench-tested for field of view, laser-fiber safety distance, irrigation flow, deflection, image resolution, signal-to-noise ratio (SNR), contrast-to-noise ratio (CNR), and color discrimination. One surgeon used each device in three separate patients (57 procedures total) and completed a standardized questionnaire after every case; three blinded reviewers scored anonymized intraoperative video. As a secondary analysis, device-level bench metrics were related to patient-level outcomes using a permutation test with correction for multiple comparisons.
RESULTS: All domains showed marked variability (resolution 0.447-0.826 lp/mm; baseline deflection 219-312°, lowest 134° with accessories; empty-channel irrigation 27.9-39.0 mL/min; field of view 75-110°). In secondary, exploratory analysis, no bench metric showed an association with surgeon-reported or video-based outcomes surviving correction for multiple comparisons (54 tests, minimum q = 0.20).
CONCLUSION: Contemporary single-use fURSs show substantial heterogeneity, and no single device excelled across every domain. Device selection should weigh several performance characteristics against the intended clinical scenario; whether bench performance predicts surgeon-reported usability remains unresolved and warrants larger, adequately powered studies.
METHODS: Each of 19 models was bench-tested for field of view, laser-fiber safety distance, irrigation flow, deflection, image resolution, signal-to-noise ratio (SNR), contrast-to-noise ratio (CNR), and color discrimination. One surgeon used each device in three separate patients (57 procedures total) and completed a standardized questionnaire after every case; three blinded reviewers scored anonymized intraoperative video. As a secondary analysis, device-level bench metrics were related to patient-level outcomes using a permutation test with correction for multiple comparisons.
RESULTS: All domains showed marked variability (resolution 0.447-0.826 lp/mm; baseline deflection 219-312°, lowest 134° with accessories; empty-channel irrigation 27.9-39.0 mL/min; field of view 75-110°). In secondary, exploratory analysis, no bench metric showed an association with surgeon-reported or video-based outcomes surviving correction for multiple comparisons (54 tests, minimum q = 0.20).
CONCLUSION: Contemporary single-use fURSs show substantial heterogeneity, and no single device excelled across every domain. Device selection should weigh several performance characteristics against the intended clinical scenario; whether bench performance predicts surgeon-reported usability remains unresolved and warrants larger, adequately powered studies.