Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30770944›Full record

ReviewWorld journal of urology2019

Which flexible ureteroscope is the best for upper tract urothelial carcinoma treatment?

Etienne Xavier Keller, Steeve Doizi, Luca Villa, Olivier Traxer

Open access · greenAbstract readComparative StudyReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in World journal of urology, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
16citing papers in PubMed
4.9field-weighted citation impact, top 5% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

16 citing papers in PubMed, 43 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Review
  13. Is a ureteral stent required before flexible ureteroscopy?Translational andrology and urology · 2020
    Article
  14. Article
  15. Consultation on UTUC Stockholm 2018.World journal of urology · 2019
    Article
  16. Single-use flexible ureteroscopes: update and perspective in developing countries. A narrative review.International braz j urol : official journal of the Brazilian Society of Urology
    Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors at 3 institutions in 3 countries.

Etienne Xavier KellerDepartment of Urology, University Hospital Zurich, University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1667-7609
Steeve DoiziSorbonne Université, Service d'Urologie, Assistance-Publique Hôpitaux de Paris, Hôpital Tenon, 4 Rue de la Chine, 75020, Paris, France.
Luca VillaDivision of Experimental Oncology/Unit of Urology, URI, IRCCS Ospedale San Raffaele, Milan, Italy.
Olivier TraxerSorbonne Université, Service d'Urologie, Assistance-Publique Hôpitaux de Paris, Hôpital Tenon, 4 Rue de la Chine, 75020, Paris, France. olivier.traxer@aphp.fr.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2459-3803
Sorbonne Université · FRIRCCS Ospedale San Raffaele · ITUniversity of Zurich · CH

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeTo present attributes of currently available flexible ureteroscopes to define the best flexible ureteroscope for upper tract urothelial carcinoma (UTUC) treatment. MATERIALS AND

methodsScopus and Medline databases were searched for articles relating to performance of flexible ureteroscopes. A consensus for final inclusion of articles judged to be relevant for UTUC treatment was reached between the authors. Instrument characteristics were extracted from manufacturers' product brochures.

resultsSmaller cross-sectional size of instruments is associated with increased probability for successful primary access to the upper urinary tract. The smallest flexible ureteroscopes are fiberoptic scopes. Smaller ureteroscopes also allow comparatively increased irrigation flow at constant intrarenal pressure. Digital flexible ureteroscopes achieve superior image quality compared to their fiberoptic counterparts, at the price of lower end-deflection ability. Image enhancement technologies such as narrow-band imaging (NBI), photodynamic diagnosis (PDD) and Image 1-S (formerly SPIES) are based on subjective image interpretation by the operator. NBI and PDD significantly increase tumor detection rate. The highest subjective image quality score of the Image 1-S technology is reached by the "Clara + Chroma" mode. Single-use ureteroscopes offer potential advantages over reusable scopes, including sterility, absence of contamination, immediate availability and exemption of previous instrument wear.

conclusionsMiniaturization, digital image caption and image enhancement technologies seem to be the major determinants defining the best flexible ureteroscope for UTUC treatment. The impact of further factors, such as distal tip design, torque, working channel position, risk of contamination, as well as upcoming technological innovations should be evaluated in randomized controlled trials.

Indexed as

UreteroscopesUreteroscopyCarcinoma, Transitional CellEquipment DesignHumansKidney NeoplasmsUreteral NeoplasmsDigitalImage enhancement technologyMiniaturizationUpper tract urothelial carcinomaUreteroscopy

Identifiers

PMID30770944
OpenAlexW2912680655

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.