Search

Objective: To develop a standardised tool to evaluate flexible ureterorenoscopes (fURS). Materials and Methods: A three-stage consensus building approach based on the modified Delphi technique was performed under guidance of a steering group. First, scope- and user-related parameters used to evaluate fURS were identified through a systematic scoping review. Then, the main categories and subcategories were defined, and the expert panel was selected. Finally, a two-step modified Delphi consensus project was conducted to firstly obtain consensus on the relevance and exact definition of each (sub)category necessary to evaluate fURS, and secondly on the evaluation method (setting, used tools and unit of outcome) of those (sub)categories. Consensus was reached at a predefined threshold of 80% high agreement. Results: The panel consisted of 30 experts in the field of endourology. The first step of the modified Delphi consensus project consisted of two questionnaires with a response rate of 97% (n = 29) for both. Consensus was reached for the relevance and definition of six main categories and 12 subcategories. The second step consisted of three questionnaires (response rate of 90%, 97% and 100%, respectively). Consensus was reached on the method of measurement for all (sub)categories. Conclusion: This modified Delphi consensus project reached consensus on a standardised grading tool for the evaluation of fURS – The Uniform grading tooL for flexIble ureterorenoscoPes (TULIP) tool. This is a first step in creating uniformity in this field of research to facilitate future comparison of outcomes of the functionality and handling of fURS.

INTRODUCTION: Patient reported outcome measures (PROMs) are powerful instruments to assess the impact of a disease on health from the patient's perspective. We describe the process of designing, testing, and validating the Cambridge Ureteral Stone PROM (CUSP). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients recently diagnosed with ureteral stones were approached for participation in focus groups, structured interviews, and test-retest validation studies. Statistical tests included Cronbach's alpha for internal consistency, Spearman's and Pearson's correlation coefficients for test-retest validity, permutation tests of equality of means and Spearman's correlation coefficients for discriminant validity. RESULTS: Forty-three patients participated in the development of the CUSP. Twenty-two patients were involved in the focus groups and structured interviews and a further 21 participated in the prospective test-retest study. Expressed comments were grouped into seven broad health domains: pain, fatigue, sleep disturbance, work and daily activities, anxiety, gastrointestinal (GI) symptoms, and urinary symptoms. Items were selected from established PROM platforms to form the draft (dCUSP) instrument, which was then used for test-retest validation and item reduction. All domains scored highly for Cronbach's alpha (>0.8), with the exception of GI symptoms. Large Spearman's (>0.76) and Pearson's correlation estimates (>0.83) were obtained for test-retest validity, suggesting that answers were reliable through the time period tested. The estimates of the Spearman's correlation coefficient between each pair of domains ranged from 0.17 to 0.78 and the upper bounds of the corresponding 95% confidence intervals were all smaller than 0.95, suggesting that each domain measures something different. The tests of equality of the mean of scores of the control (n = 25) and patient groups were all significant, suggesting that CUSP successfully discriminated patients suffering from ureteral stones for every domain. CONCLUSION: CUSP is a patient-derived ureteral stone PROM, which can be used to measure ureteral stone disease health outcomes from the patient's point of view.

Background: Single-use flexible ureterorenoscopes (fURSs) have been recently introduced aiming to offer solutions to the sterilization, fragility and cost issues of the reusable fURSs. In order to be a viable alternative, the single-use scopes must prove similar capabilities when compared to their reusable counterparts. The goal of our in-vitro study was to compare the current reusable and single-use digital fURSs regarding their deflection, irrigation and vision characteristics. Methods: We compared in-vitro 4 single-use fURSs-LithoVue (TM) (Boston Scientific, Marlborough, Massachusetts, USA), Uscope (TM) (Zhuhai Pusen Medical Technology Co. Ltd., Zhuhai, Guangdong Province, China), NeoFlex (TM) (NeoScope Inc, San Jose, California, USA) and ShaoGang (TM) (YouCare Technology Co. Ltd., Wuhan, China) versus 4 reusable fURSs-FLEX-Xc (Karl Storz SE & Co KG, Tuttlingen, Germany), URF- V2 (Olympus, Shinjuku, Tokyo, Japan), COBRA vision and BOA vision (Richard Wolf GmbH, Knittlingen, Germany). Deflection and irrigation abilities were evaluated with different instruments inserted through the working channel: laser fibres (200/273/365 mu m), retrieval baskets (1.5/1.9/2.2 Fr), guide wires [polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE) 0.038 inch, nitinol 0.035 inch] and a biopsy forceps. A scoring system was designed to compare the deflection impairment. Saline at different heights (40/80 cm) was used for irrigation. The flow was measured with the tip of the fURS initially straight and then fully deflected. The vision characteristics were evaluated (field of view, depth of field, image resolution, distortion and colour representation) using specific target models. Results: Overall, the single-use fURSs had superior in-vitro deflection abilities than the reusable fURSs, in most settings. The highest score was achieved by NeoFlexT and the lowest by ShaoGang (TM). PTFE guide wire had most impact on deflection for all fURSs. The 200 mu m laser fibre had the lowest impact on deflection for the single-use fURSs. The 1.5 Fr basket caused the least deflection impairment on reusable fURSs. At the end of the tests, deflection loss was noted in most of the single-use fURSs, while none of the reusable fURSs presented deflection impairment. ShaoGang (TM) had the highest irrigation flow. Increasing the size of the instruments occupying the working channel led to decrease of irrigation flow in all fURSs. The impact of maximal deflection on irrigation flow was very low for all fURSs. When instruments were occupying the working channel, the single-use fURSs had slightly better in-vitro irrigation flow than the reusable fURSs. The field of view was comparable for all fURSs, with LithoVue (TM) showing a slight advantage. Depth of field and colour reproducibility were almost similar for all fURSs. ShaoGang (TM) and UscopeT had the lowest resolution. FLEX Xc had the highest image distortion while LithoVueT had the lowest. Partial field of view impairment was not for Uscope (TM) and ShaoGang (TM). Conclusions: In-vitro, there are differences in technical characteristics of fURSs. It appears that single-use fURSs deflect better than their reusable counterparts. Irrespective of deflection, the irrigation flow of the singleuse fURSs was slightly superior to the flow of the reusable fURSs. Overall, reusable fURSs had better vision characteristics than single-use fURSs. Further in-vivo studies might be necessary to confirm these findings.