Comparison of Flexible Ureterorenoscope Quality of Vision: An In Vitro Study.

INTRODUCTION: Flexible ureterorenoscopy (fURS) is one of the best solutions for treatment of renal calculi <2 cm and for upper urinary tract urothelial carcinoma conservative treatment. An adequate quality of vision is mandatory to help surgeon get better outcomes. No studies have been done, to our knowledge, about what fURS in the market has the best quality of vision. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Seven different fURS were used to compare the image quality (Lithovue, Olympus V, Olympus V2, Storz Flex XC-in White Light and in Clara+Chroma mode-Wolf Cobra Vision, Olympus P6, and Storx Flex X2). Two standardized grids to evaluate contrast and image definition and three stones of different composition were filmed in four standardized different scenarios. These videos were shown to 103 subjects (51 urologists and 52 nonurologists) who had to evaluate them with a rating scale from 1 (very bad) to 5 (very good). RESULTS: No difference in terms of scores was observed for sex of the participants. Digital (D) ureterorenoscopes were rated better than fiber optics (FOs) ureterorenoscopes. Overall, Flex XC White Light and XC Clara+Chroma image quality resulted steadily better than other fURS (p < 0.0001). Olympus V generally provided a vision better than Lithovue. Cobra Vision and Olympus V2 had superimposable values that were significantly lower than Lithovue's ones. Olympus P6 and Storz X2 offered a low quality of vision compared to the others. In the medium simulating bleeding, Olympus V and V2 significantly improved their scores of 12% and 8.1%, contrary to rest of the ureterorenoscopes. CONCLUSION: D ureterorenoscopes have a better image quality than FO ones. The only disposable ureterorenoscope tested was comparable to the majority of other D ureterorenoscopes. The best image quality was provided by Storz D ureterorenoscopes, being Clara Chroma the favorite Spies Mode, according to literature.

Evaluation of the Spies TM modalities image quality

Introduction The Spies™ system (Karl-Storz®) was introduced into digital ureteroscopy to improve endoscopic vision. To date, there is no data to either indicate which of the Spies modalities is better for improving diagnosis and treatment procedures, nor to compare the modalities in terms of image quality. The aim of this study was to evaluate and compare the image quality of five Spies™ modalities (SM) to the standard white light in an in-vitro model. Materials and Methods Two standardized grids and 3 stones of different composition were recorded in white light and the 5SM (Clara, Chroma, Clara+Chroma), Spectra A and B) using 4 standardized aqueous scenarios. Twelve templates were done in order to simultaneously compare the same objective in the different modalities. Six urologists, five medical students, five urology residents, and five persons not involved with urology evaluated each video on a scale of 1 (very bad) to 5 (very good). Results Comparing white light to SM, subjects scored better the quality of Clara and Clara+Chroma than white light (p=0.0139 and p<0.05) and scored worse Spectra A and B (p=0.0005 and p=0.0023)). When comparing Clara to the other SM, it was ranked equivalent to Clara+Chroma (p=0.67) and obtained a higher rank than Chroma, Spectra A and B (p<0.05, p=0.0001 and p=0.0001). In the multivariate analysis mean scores were higher among urologists. Conclusion In all analyzed scenarios, the subjects ranked Clara and Clara+Chroma as the modalities with better image quality compared to white light.

Evaluation of the Spies TM modalities image quality.

INTRODUCTION: The Spies™ system (Karl-Storz®) was introduced into digital ureteroscopy to improve endoscopic vision. To date, there is no data to either indicate which of the Spies modalities is better for improving diagnosis and treatment procedures, nor to compare the modalities in terms of image quality. The aim of this study was to evaluate and compare the image quality of five Spies™ modalities (SM) to the standard white light in an in-vitro model. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Two standardized grids and 3 stones of different composition were recorded in white light and the 5SM (Clara, Chroma, Clara+Chroma), Spectra A and B) using 4 standardized aqueous scenarios. Twelve templates were done in order to simultaneously compare the same objective in the different modalities. Six urologists, five medical students, five urology residents, and five persons not involved with urology evaluated each video on a scale of 1 (very bad) to 5 (very good). RESULTS: Comparing white light to SM, subjects scored better the quality of Clara and Clara+Chroma than white light (p=0.0139 and p<0.05) and scored worse Spectra A and B (p=0.0005 and p=0.0023). When comparing Clara to the other SM, it was ranked equivalent to Clara+Chroma (p=0.67) and obtained a higher rank than Chroma, Spectra A and B (p<0.05, p=0.0001 and p=0.0001). In the multivariate analysis mean scores were higher among urologists. CONCLUSION: In all analyzed scenarios, the subjects ranked Clara and Clara+Chroma as the modalities with better image quality compared to white light.