Urology · 2020
Preclinical and Clinical Evaluation of a Novel, Variable-View, Rigid Endoscope for Female Cystoscopy.
Оценочное исследованиеСтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
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.
Waldbillig Frank, von Rohr Lennard, Nientiedt Malin, Grüne Britta, Hein Simon, Suarez-Ibarrola Rodrigo, Miernik Arkadiusz, Gratzke Christian, Ritter Manuel, Kriegmair Maximilian C
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the preclinical and clinical performance of the pivoting lens rigid Endocameleon (ECAM) endoscope in white light cystoscopy (WLC).
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Preclinical evaluation was performed ex vivo in CT-based, anatomically accurate and validated bladder phantoms. Six defined tasks with objective endpoints were compared between ECAM-WLC and rigid WLC (30° view angle, rWLC) in 30 interventions. Subsequently, the comparison was transferred to in vivo n = 21 interventions. A validated usability score (System Usability Scale, SUS) as well as physician and patient-related outcomes were assessed using Likert-scale-based questionnaires. Intra- and postinterventional complications were recorded according to the Clavien-Dindo classification.
RESULTS: The ex vivo evaluation showed a significant superiority of ECAM-WLC in 4 of 6 endoscopic tasks. Noteworthy is the lower pressure on the bladder neck due to the endoscopesalteration of the endoscope (4/60 vs 17/60, P <.0001) and a more precise imaging of all bladder regions (22/30 vs 30/30, P = .046), including the anterior wall (0/30 vs 28/30, P <.0001). In vivo, surgeons rated the ECAM-WLC with an "excellent" SUS of 86.79%, also expressing that ECAM-WLC would enhance bladder surface visualization (4.52/5.0 ± 0.51), with a preferred use for ECAM-WLC during their next cystoscopy (4.62 ± 0.50). Patients reported ECAM-WLC to be less painful (4.5/5.0 ± 0.84) compared to rWLC. No intervention-related complications were observed.
CONCLUSION: ECAM-WLC is a safe and accessible procedure that could improve conventional diagnostic WLC by combination of the advantages of fWLC and rWLC.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Preclinical evaluation was performed ex vivo in CT-based, anatomically accurate and validated bladder phantoms. Six defined tasks with objective endpoints were compared between ECAM-WLC and rigid WLC (30° view angle, rWLC) in 30 interventions. Subsequently, the comparison was transferred to in vivo n = 21 interventions. A validated usability score (System Usability Scale, SUS) as well as physician and patient-related outcomes were assessed using Likert-scale-based questionnaires. Intra- and postinterventional complications were recorded according to the Clavien-Dindo classification.
RESULTS: The ex vivo evaluation showed a significant superiority of ECAM-WLC in 4 of 6 endoscopic tasks. Noteworthy is the lower pressure on the bladder neck due to the endoscopesalteration of the endoscope (4/60 vs 17/60, P <.0001) and a more precise imaging of all bladder regions (22/30 vs 30/30, P = .046), including the anterior wall (0/30 vs 28/30, P <.0001). In vivo, surgeons rated the ECAM-WLC with an "excellent" SUS of 86.79%, also expressing that ECAM-WLC would enhance bladder surface visualization (4.52/5.0 ± 0.51), with a preferred use for ECAM-WLC during their next cystoscopy (4.62 ± 0.50). Patients reported ECAM-WLC to be less painful (4.5/5.0 ± 0.84) compared to rWLC. No intervention-related complications were observed.
CONCLUSION: ECAM-WLC is a safe and accessible procedure that could improve conventional diagnostic WLC by combination of the advantages of fWLC and rWLC.