ArticleWorld journal of urology2024
Illumination matters Part II: advanced comparative analysis of flexible ureteroscopes in a kidney model by PEARLS.
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.
- 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
- Illumination matters Part III: Impact of light obstruction on illuminance from flexible ureteroscopes - a comparative PEARLS analysis.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
13 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThe aim of the study was to evaluate illumination properties in an in-vitro kidney calyx model in saline. DESIGN AND
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 a 3D-printed closed pink kidney calyx model, submerged in saline. A spectrometer was used for illuminance and color temperature measurements at different openings located at center (direct light), 45° (direct and indirect light) and 90°(indirect light) to the axis of the scope.
resultsMaximum illuminance was at the center opening for all scopes (range: 284 to 12,058 lx at 50% brightness and 454 to 11,871 lx at 100% brightness settings). The scope with the highest center illuminance (Flex-Xc) was 26 times superior to the scope with the lowest illuminance (Pusen 7.5Fr) at 100% brightness setting. For each scope, there was a peripheral illuminance drop ranging from - 43 to - 92% at 50% brightness and - 43% to - 88% at 100% brightness settings, respectively (all p < 0.01). Highest drop was for the P7 and the Pusen 9.2F. All scopes had illuminance skew, except the V3. All scopes had a warm color temperature.
conclusionIllumination properties vary between ureteroscopes in an enclosed cavity in saline, and differs at center vs 45° and 90° positions within scopes. Peripheral illuminance drop can be as high as - 92%, which is undesirable. This may affect the choice of ureteroscope and light brightness settings used in surgery by urologists.
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.