Skip to main content
Log in

Do new generation flexible ureterorenoscopes offer a higher treatment success than their predecessors?

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Urological Research Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

New generation flexible ureterorenoscopes offer an improved deflection mechanism and a stiffer sheath compared to their predecessors. We aimed to determine if these improvements in design lead to a higher efficacy in the treatment of nephrolithiasis. Ninety patients with upper urinary tract calculi were included into a retrospective analysis. Twenty-nine cases were treated with the conventional flexible ureterorenoscope (11274 AA, Karl Storz Endoscopy, Germany) and 61 cases were treated with the new generation device (Flex-X, Karl Storz Endoscopy). Patients’ and stone characteristics, intraoperative data, treatment success and complications were retrieved from the charts and compared between the two groups. Preoperative data were comparable in both groups. Whereas stone access was also comparable (97 vs. 100%; n.s.), immediate treatment success was significantly higher for the new flexible scope (70 vs. 38%; p = 0.003). For the subgroup of lower pole stones, stone access was possible in 94 versus 100% (n.s.) and treatment success was 31 versus 69% (p = 0.0004) for the conventional and the new generation device, respectively. No major complications were observed, minor complications were comparable in both groups. Our study suggests an advantage of the new generation flexible ureterorenoscopes compared to their predecessors. They offer an increased stone free rate especially in the treatment of lower pole stones. It seems therefore advisable to switch to the latest generation flexible devices.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Marshall VF (1964) Fiber optics in urology. J Urol 91:110–114

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Takayasu H, Aso Y, Takagi T et al (1971) Clinical applications of fiber-optic pyeloureteroscopy. Urol Int 26:97–104

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Afane JS, Olweny EO, Bercowsky E et al (2000) Flexible ureteroscopes: a single center evaluation of the durability and function of the new endoscopes smaller than 9Fr. J Urol 164:1164–1168

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Johnson GB, Portela D, Grasso M (2006) Advanced ureteroscopy: wireless and sheathless. J Endourol 20:552–555

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Wendt-Nordahl G, Trojan L, Alken P et al (2007) Ureteroscopy for stone treatment using new 270 degrees semiflexible endoscope: in vitro, ex vivo, and clinical application. J Endourol 21:1439–1444

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Traxer O, Dubosq F, Jamali K et al (2006) New-generation flexible ureterorenoscopes are more durable than previous ones. Urology 68:276–279

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Johnson GB, Grasso M (2004) Exaggerated primary endoscope deflection: initial clinical experience with prototype flexible ureteroscopes. BJU Int 93:109–114

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Pasqui F, Dubosq F, Tchala K et al (2004) Impact on active scope deflection and irrigation flow of all endoscopic working tools during flexible ureteroscopy. Eur Urol 45:58–64

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Chiu KY, Cai Y, Marcovich R et al (2004) Are new-generation flexible ureteroscopes better than their predecessors? BJU Int 93:115–119

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Cannon GM, Smaldone MC, Wu HY et al (2007) Ureteroscopic management of lower-pole stones in a pediatric population. J Endourol 21:1179–1182

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Grasso M, Ficazzola M (1999) Retrograde ureteropyeloscopy for lower pole caliceal calculi. J Urol 162:1904–1908

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Portis AJ, Rygwall R, Holtz C et al (2006) Ureteroscopic laser lithotripsy for upper urinary tract calculi with active fragment extraction and computerized tomography followup. J Urol 175:2129–2133

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Breda A, Ogunyemi O, Leppert JT et al (2008) Flexible ureteroscopy and laser lithotripsy for single intrarenal stones 2 cm or greater-is this the new frontier? J Urol 179:981–984

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Michel MS, Knoll T, Ptaschnyk T et al (2002) Flexible ureterorenoscopy for the treatment of lower pole calyx stones: influence of different lithotripsy probes and stone extraction tools on scope deflection and irrigation flow. Eur Urol 41:312–316

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Ankem MK, Lowry PS, Slovick RW et al (2004) Clinical utility of dual active deflection flexible ureteroscope during upper tract ureteropyeloscopy. Urology 64:430–434

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

The authors thank Dr. Kadir Önem for his support on statistical analysis.

Conflict of interest

No competing financial interest exists.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Thomas Knoll.

Additional information

Gunnar Wendt-Nordahl and Tuna Mut contributed equally to this work.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Wendt-Nordahl, G., Mut, T., Krombach, P. et al. Do new generation flexible ureterorenoscopes offer a higher treatment success than their predecessors?. Urol Res 39, 185–188 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00240-010-0331-0

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00240-010-0331-0

Keywords

Navigation