ArticleWorld journal of urology2024
Illumination matters part I: comparative analysis of light sources and illumination in flexible ureteroscopy-fundamental findings from a 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 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- [Critical assessment of single-use endoscopes].Urologie (Heidelberg, Germany) · 2025Review
- Illumination matters Part II: advanced comparative analysis of flexible ureteroscopes in a kidney model by PEARLS.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
purposeIllumination characteristics of flexible ureteroscopes have been evaluated in air, but not in saline, the native operative medium for endourology. The aim was to evaluate light properties of contemporary ureteroscopes in air versus saline, light distribution analysis, and color temperature.
methodsWe evaluated the Storz Flex-Xc and Flex-X2s, Olympus V3 and P7, Pusen 7.5F and 9.2F, and OTU WiScope using a 3D printed black target board in-vitro model submerged in saline. A spectrometer was used for lux and color temperature measurements at different opening locations.
resultsIlluminance was higher in saline compared to air (5679 vs. 5205 lx with Flex-Xc, p = 0.02). Illuminance in saline differed between ureteroscopes (ANOVA p < 0.001), with highest for the Flex-Xc at 100% brightness setting (5679 lx), followed by Pusen 9.2F (5280 lx), Flex-X2s (4613 lx), P7 (4371 lx), V3 (2374 lx), WiScope (582 lx) and finally Pusen 7.5F (255 lx). The same ranking was found at 50% brightness setting, with the highest ureteroscope illuminance value 34 times that of the scope with lowest illuminance. Most scopes had maximum illuminance off center, with skewness. Three scopes had two light sources, with one light source for all other scopes. Inter-scope comparisons revealed significant differences of color temperature (ANOVA p < 0.001).
conclusionThe study demonstrates the presence of inhomogeneous light spread as well as large differences in illumination properties of ureteroscopes, possibly impacting on the performance of individual scopes in vivo. Additionally, the study suggests that future studies on illumination characteristics of flexible ureteroscopes should ideally be done in saline, and no longer in air.
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.