A clinical evaluation of the new digital single-use flexible ureteroscope (UscopePU3022): An international prospective multicentered study
AuthorJohnston, Thomas James
de la Rosette, Jean J. M. C. H.
Osther, Palle Jorn Sloth
MetadataShow full item record
CitationJohnston, T., Baard, J., de la Rosette, J. J. M. C. H., Doizi, S., Giusti, G., Knoll, T. ... Wiseman, O. (2018). A clinical evaluation of the new digital single-use flexible ureteroscope (UscopePU3022): An international prospective multicentered study. Central European Journal of Urology, 71(4), 453-461. https://dx.doi.org/10.5173/ceju.2018.1787
Introduction We assessed the clinical performance of a new digital single-use flexible ureteroscope (UscopePU3022). Material and methods A prospective cohort study was carried out across 11 centers (July-Oct. 2017). The UscopePU3022 was assessed regarding ease of insertion; deflection, image quality, maneuverability and overall performance using either a visual analog* or Likert scale. Results A total of 56 procedures were performed in 11 centers (16 surgeons) with the indication being renal stones in 83%. The median score for ease of scope insertion was 10 (3-10). Intraoperative maneuverability was rated as 'good' in 38% and 'very good' in 52%. Visual quality was rated as 'poor or bad' in 18%, 'fair' in 37% and 'good very good' in 43%. Two scopes failed intraoperatively (4%). Preoperative and postoperative median upward and downward deflection was 270 degrees. Compared to standard flexible ureteroscopy (f-URS) maneuverability was rated as 'equivalent' in 30% and 'better' in 60%; visual quality was 'worse' in 38% and 'equivalent or better' in 62%; limb fatigue scores were 'better' in 86%; and overall performance was 'worse' in 55% and 'equivalent or better' in 45%. Conclusions UscopeTM3022 performed well with regards to maneuverability, deflection and limb fatigue and appears to be at least non-inferior to standard f-URS with regards to these parameters. Poor image quality is a concern for UscopePU3022 with it receiving a low overall performance rating when compared to standard f-URS. Despite this it scored highly when investigators were asked if they would use it in their practice if it was cost-effective to do so.