ArticleWorld journal of urology2024
Illumination matters Part III: Impact of light obstruction on illuminance from flexible ureteroscopes - a comparative PEARLS analysis.
Article in World journal of urology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Being all-seeing gymnast within kidney cavity: analysis of the optical and flexibility characteristics trends of 61 flexible ureteroscopes over four decades.Urolithiasis · 2024Review
- Illumination matters part I: comparative analysis of light sources and illumination in flexible ureteroscopy-fundamental findings from a PEARLS analysis.World journal of urology · 2024Article
- Illumination matters part IV: blackout and whiteout in flexible ureteroscopy - first report on a phenomenon observed by PEARLS.World journal of urology · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
14 authors at 5 institutions in 7 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeArtifacts from poor ureteroscopes' light design with shadowing and dark areas in the field of view have been reported. The aim was to quantify effects of light obstruction in a kidney calyx model.
methodsWe evaluated a series of contemporary flexible ureteroscopes including the Storz Flex-Xc and Flex-X2s, Olympus V3 and P7, Pusen 7.5F and 9.2F, as well as OTU Wiscope using an enclosed 3D-printed pink in vitro kidney calyx model submerged in saline, where the field of light was intentionally partially obstructed alternatively at 12, 3, 6, and 9 o'clock. A color spectrometer was used for illuminance measurements at a 45° opening position in the background of the model.
resultsOverall and mean background illuminance for each obstructive situation were significantly different between scopes for both 50% and 100% brightness settings (ANOVA p < 0.001). At 50% brightness setting, almost all scopes had their highest and lowest background illuminance with the 6 o'clock and 3 o'clock obstructive situation, respectively. At 100% brightness setting, these became 6 o'clock and 12 o'clock obstructive situations. Considering each obstructive situation individually, the Flex-Xc was consistently the scope with highest background illuminance and the Pusen 7.5F the lowest. Background illuminance for each obstructive situation varied significantly for each scope individually, with the greatest range of variability for Pusen 7.5F and V3.
conclusionsIlluminance performance of ureteroscopes within an obstructed calyx model differ significantly for various obstructive situations. Urologists should be aware of this to help guide their choice of ureteroscope.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.