Trial reportWorld journal of urology2025
A prospective survey evaluating the visual quality of KARL STORZ fiberoptic, digital, and disposable flexible ureteroscopes.
Trial report in World journal of urology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT05646069 (Evaluation of Novel Disposable Flexible Ureteroscope for the Treatment of Renal Calculi), which is not on this map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
Evaluation of Novel Disposable Flexible Ureteroscope for the Treatment of Renal Calculi
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeTo compare the visual quality amongst the disposable FLEX-XC1, digital FLEX-XC, and fiberoptic FLEX-X2S flexible ureteroscopes (FUS) and determine whether urologists can distinguish which FUS is in use.
methodsIn this prospective survey, 6 patients were prospectively randomized to the disposable FLEX-XC1, digital FLEX-XC, and fiberoptic FLEX-X2S FUS for retrograde intrarenal surgery (RIRS) for nephrolithiasis. Each RIRS was performed by a single-surgeon and recorded. 9 fellowship-trained endourologists were blinded to which FUS was used. They were asked to view the recordings, answer which FUS was used, and fill out a 7-question survey grading parameters from 0 to 5. Statistical analysis was performed with SPSS. ANOVA with Tukey's posthoc analysis confirmed significance defined as p < 0.05.
results78%, 89%, and 78% of endourologists correctly identified which FUS was used between the disposable FLEX-XC1, digital FLEX-XC, and fiberoptic FLEX-X2S FUS's respectively. The digital FUS outperformed the others in overall score (p < 0.001). The only visual parameter that was not statistically different amongst FUS's was Laser Activation Interference (p = 0.97). After Tukey's posthoc analysis, the digital FUS outperformed the fiberoptic scope in all parameters except LAI. The disposable FUS outperformed the fiberoptic scope in all parameters except for LAI, tissue interference (TI), and overall impression. The digital FUS was superior to the disposable FUS only in Visual quality (Color) and TI.
conclusionsThe majority of fellowship-trained endourologists can distinguish which type of KARL STORZ FUS is in use. The KARL STORZ digital and disposable FUS's outperform the KARL STORZ fiberoptic FUS in nearly all visual parameters. The KARL STORZ disposable FUS is comparable to the KARL STORZ digital FUS except for Visual Quality (Color) and Tissue Interference. CLINICAL
trial registrationThis study was approved by the Northwestern Institutional Review Board and was assigned study ID STU00217933. It is also registered under NCT05646069, titled "Evaluation of Novel Disposable Flexible Ureteroscope for the Treatment of Renal Calculi."
Indexed as
Identifiers
39937281What 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.