Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31659464›Full record

ArticleWorld journal of urology2020

Laser fibre, rather than the stone, may harm the scope: retrospective monocentric analysis of 26 pre- and intraoperative factors of flexible ureteroscope (fURS) damage.

Tomasz Ozimek, Jens Cordes, Nils Gilbert, Marie C Hupe, Judith R Wiessmeyer, Michael H Schneider, Axel S Merseburger, Mario Wolfgang Kramer

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in World journal of urology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
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

8 authors.

Tomasz OzimekDepartment of Urology, University Hospital Schleswig-Holstein, Campus Luebeck, Ratzeburger Allee 160, 23538, Lübeck, Germany.
Jens CordesDepartment of Urology, University Hospital Schleswig-Holstein, Campus Luebeck, Ratzeburger Allee 160, 23538, Lübeck, Germany.
Nils GilbertDepartment of Urology, University Hospital Schleswig-Holstein, Campus Luebeck, Ratzeburger Allee 160, 23538, Lübeck, Germany.
Marie C HupeDepartment of Urology, University Hospital Schleswig-Holstein, Campus Luebeck, Ratzeburger Allee 160, 23538, Lübeck, Germany.
Judith R WiessmeyerDepartment of Urology, University Hospital Schleswig-Holstein, Campus Luebeck, Ratzeburger Allee 160, 23538, Lübeck, Germany.
Michael H SchneiderDepartment of Urology, University Hospital Schleswig-Holstein, Campus Luebeck, Ratzeburger Allee 160, 23538, Lübeck, Germany.
Axel S MerseburgerDepartment of Urology, University Hospital Schleswig-Holstein, Campus Luebeck, Ratzeburger Allee 160, 23538, Lübeck, Germany.
Mario Wolfgang KramerDepartment of Urology, University Hospital Schleswig-Holstein, Campus Luebeck, Ratzeburger Allee 160, 23538, Lübeck, Germany. mario.kramer@uksh.de.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeThe increasing number of flexible ureteroscopy procedures, the fragility of devices and their repair costs are a burden for urological departments worldwide. The objective was to investigate the impact of 26 pre- and intraoperative factors on reusable flexible ureteroscope (fURS) damage.

methodsAll procedures were conducted with reusable fURS: Karl Storz Flex-X2 or Olympus URF-V. Statistical analysis was performed in RStudio (1.0.136) with Chi-square test and Mann-Whitney U tests (MWU).

resultsIn total, 416 flexible ureteroscopies, performed between September 2013 and June 2017, were analysed. 283 (68.03%) of these were for kidney stone surgery, and 133 (31.97%) for diagnostic purposes. In total, 39 (9.38%) devices were postoperatively deemed defective. The application of reusable laser fibre through fURS was more common in cases with documented defects [17/39 (43.59%) vs. 102/377 (27.06%), p = 0.047]. Other factors such as application of nitinol basket, biopsy via fURS, insertion of access sheath (UAS), as well as stone burden [median kidney stone maximal diameter: 6 mm (min 2.0; max 30.0) vs. 6 mm (min 1.0 vs. max 30.0)] showed no influence on fURS damage rate (p > 0.05). The infundibulopelvic angle (IPA) was steeper in cases with fURS damage as compared to cases without damage [median 44.0° (min 20.0; max 81.0) vs. 55.0 (min 7.0; max 122.0), p < 0.001].

conclusionsApplication of laser fibre via fURS can be considered as a risk factor of fURS damage. Stone burden, as well as the usage of not-sharp ended devices as nitinol baskets or forceps, is primarily not responsible for fURS damage.

Indexed as

Equipment FailureUreteroscopesEquipment DesignEquipment ReuseFemaleHumansIntraoperative PeriodKidney CalculiMaleMiddle AgedPreoperative PeriodRetrospective StudiesDamageFlexible ureteroscopyInfundibulopelvic angleLaser fibre

Identifiers

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.