Skip to main content

Flexible Ureteroscopes: Fiberoptic and Digital

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Ureteroscopy

Part of the book series: Current Clinical Urology ((CCU))

Abstract

Ureteroscopes have undergone a significant evolutionary course in terms of both concept and design. The earliest flexible ureteroscopes were used only for diagnostic purposes. With subsequent addition of working channels, ureteroscopes were used in a more active and therapeutic role. Limitations of semirigid ureteroscopes revealed that an ureteroscope with an articulating/deflecting nature would be required for navigation of more proximal renal and otherwise tortuous anatomy. With smaller caliber and combined deflective mechanisms, currently available flexible ureteroscopes can now generally be advanced into all portions of the kidney and its associated calcyceal anatomy for treatment of a number of pathologies.

A thorough understanding of the construction of the flexible ureteroscope is critical in understanding how to properly use these instruments, in terms of understanding their capabilities, limitations, optimization of use, and their care, as these instruments, due to their small caliber and fragile nature, are prone to damage.

Critical elements for successful construction of modern-day working flexible ureteroscopes include ability to acquire and transmit an image, ability to transmit or produce light sufficient for imaging, functional working channels for use of ancillary devices, adequate channel capacity for irrigation, ability to have active control maneuverability of the scope, and small shaft caliber. Though digital flexible ureteroscopes have a different operative paradigm in terms of optics and image production, many mechanical and structural features of these ureteroscopes remain quite similar to their fiberoptic counterparts.

Despite widespread use, there has been concern that fiberoptic ureteroscopes tend to have a grainy image, water may leak into the lens, and fibers may burn out and fracture, resulting in loss of image quality. The key paradigm change with digital flexible ureteroscopes is the “chip on the tip design,” where an image is picked up, at times processed, and then transmitted by a digital sensor, and sent to a proximal point a single wire, where further processing and transmission take place. This arrangement bypasses the fragile optical fiber system of conventional fiberoptic flexible ureteroscopes.

Though fiberoptic ureteroscopes are being replaced with their digital counterparts, a thorough understanding of these earlier ureteroscopes is important in that studies of these ureteroscopes reveal a number of issues that impact the use and durability of ureteroscopes in a large number of ways. It is likely that such findings will also facilitate improvements in digital flexible ureteroscopes.

Many parameters of flexible ureteroscopes have been compared in a variety of fashions. Review of these investigations lends further understanding into the features and limitations of these ureteroscopes, in terms of working parameters (optical/mechanical) and overall durability. There are few all-inclusive direct comparison studies. Durability studies are of importance in that costs of damage and maintenance factor significantly into overall cost of ureteroscopy. As digital ureteroscopes have only more relatively recently been introduced into more regular use, data regarding outcome with them, using a number of assessment parameters, will be forthcoming in the near future.

Though experience to date with digital flexible ureteroscopes is limited, they have been received quite favorably. They have notably improved image quality, a brighter image, are lightweight, and likely cause less operator-related fatigue. Digital ureteroscopes carry the immediate promise of better optics and visualization, but only further experience will dictate to what degree they address other shortcomings that exist beyond those of optics, namely, in terms of working channel parameters, reliable/user-friendly deflective mechanisms, and durability.

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

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 129.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 219.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  1. Young HH, Mckay RW. Congenital valvular obstruction of the prostatic urethra. Surg Gynecol Obstet. 1929;48:509.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Marshall VF. Fiberoptics in urology. J Urol. 1964;91:110–4.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Aso Y, Takayasu H, Ohta N, Tajima A. Flexible ureterorenoscopy. Urol Clin North Am. 1988;15:329–38.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Parkin J, Keeley Jr FX, Timoney AG. Flexible ureteroscope: a user’s guide. BJU Int. 2002;90:640–3.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. El-Hakim A, Tan BJ, Smith AD. Ureteroscopy: technical aspects. In: Stoller ML, Meng MV, editors. Urinary stone disease. Totowa: Humana press; 2007. p. 589–607.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  6. Grasso M, Bagley D. Small diameter, actively deflectable, flexible ureteropyleoscopy. J Urol. 1998;160(5):1648–53.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Johnston WK. Epochs in endourology: the birth of fiber optics from “light guiding”. J Endourol. 2004;18(5):425–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Hecht J. City of lights: the story of fiberoptics. New York: Oxford University Press; 1999. p. 13–27. 60–75.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Colladon D. On the reflections of a ray of light inside a parabolic liquid stream. Compt Rend. 1842;15:800.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Babinet J. Note on the transmission of light by sinous channels. Compt Rend. 1842;15:802.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Tyndall J. On some phenomena connected with the motion of liquids. Proc R Inst Great Britain. 1854;1:446.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Hirschowitz BI, Curtiss LE, Peters CW, et al. Demonstration of a new gastroscope, the fiberscope. Gastroenterology. 1958;35:50.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Chiu KY, Cai Y, Marcovich R, et al. Comparison of the mechanical, flow, and optical properties of contemporary flexible ureteroscopes. Urology. 2003;62(5):800–4.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Andonian S, Okeke Z, Smith AD. Digital ureteroscopy: the next step. J Endourol. 2008;22(4):603–5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Sidorov DN, Kokaram AC. Suppression of moiré patterns via spectral analysis. In: Jay Kuo C-C, editors. Visual communications and image processing. Proceedings of the society of Photographic Instrumentation Engineers. vol. 4671; 2002. p. 895.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Hudson RG, Conlin MJ, Bagley DH. Ureteric access with flexible ureteroscopes: effect of the size of the ureteroscope. BJU Int. 2005;95:1043–4.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Bach T, Geavlete B, Hermann TRW, et al. Working tools in flexible ureterorenoscopy-influence on flow and deflection: what does matter? J Endourol. 2008;22(8):1639–43.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Natalin RA, Landman J. Where next for the endoscope? Nat Rev Urol. 2009;6:622–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Boyle WS, Smith GS. Charge coupled semiconductor devices. Bell Syst Tech J. 1970;49:587–93.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Damerell CJS, Farley FJM, Gillman AR, et al. Charge-coupled devices or particle detection with high spatial resolution. Nucl Instrum Methods. 1981;185:33–42.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Golden JP, Ligler FS. A comparison of imaging methods for use in an array biosensor. Biosens Bioelectron. 2002;17:719–25.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Nagele U, Horstmann M, Hennenlotter J, et al. Size does matter: 1.5 Fr stone baskets almost double irrigation flow during flexible ureteroscopy compared to 1.9 Fr stone baskets. Urol Res. 2006;34:389–92.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Bach T, Netsch C, Herrmann TRW, et al. Objective assessment of working tool impact on irrigation flow and visibility in flexible ureterorenoscopes. J Endourol. 2011;25(7):1125–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Kruck S, Anastasiadis AG, Gakis G, et al. Flow matters: irrigation flow differs in flexible ureteroscopes of the newest generation. Urol Res. 2011;39(6):483–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Haberman KH, Ortiz-Alvarado O, Chotikawanich E, et al. A dual-channel flexible ureteroscope: evaluation of deflection, flow, illumination, and optics. J Endourol. 2011;25(9):1411–4.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Monga M, Weiland D, Pedro RN, et al. Intrarenal manipulation of flexible ureteroscopes: a comparative study. BJU Int. 2007;100:157–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Ankem MK, Lowry PS, Slovick RW, et al. Clinical utility of dual active deflection flexible ureteroscope during upper tract ureteropyeloscopy. Urology. 2004;64:430–4.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Sung JC, Springhart WP, Marguet CG, et al. Location and etiology of flexible and semirigid ureteroscope damage. Urology. 2005;66(5):958–63.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Afane JS, Olweny EO, Bercowsky E, et al. Flexible ureteroscopes: a single center evaluation of the durability and function of the new ureteroscopes smaller than 9Fr. J Urol. 2000;164:1164–8.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  30. User HM, Hua V, Blunt LW, et al. Performance and durability of leading flexible ureteroscopes. J Endourol. 2004;18:735–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Monga M, Best S, Venkatesh R, Ame C, et al. Durability of flexible ureteroscopes: a randomized prospective study. J Urol. 2006;176:137–41.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Carey RI, Gomez CS, Maurici G, et al. Frequency of ureteroscope damage at a tertiary care center. J Urol. 2006;176:607–10.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Traxer O, Dubosq F, Jamali K, et al. New-generation flexible ureteroscopes are more durable than previous ones. Urology. 2006;68(2):276–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Knudsen B, Miyaoka R, Shah K, et al. Durability of the next-generation flexible fiberoptic ureteroscopes: a randomized prospective multi-institutional trial. Urology. 2010;75(3):534–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Al-Qahtani SM, Geavlette BP, de Medina GS, et al. The new Olympus digital flexible ureteroscope (URF-V): initial experience. Urol Ann. 2011;3(3):133–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Pietrow PK, Auge BK, Delvecchio FC, et al. Techniques to maximize flexible ureteroscopy longetevity. Urology. 2002;60(5):784–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Busby JE, Low RK. Ureteroscopic treatment of renal calculi. Urol Clin North Am. 2004;31:89–98.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Kourambas J, Byrne RR, Preminger GM. Does a ureteral access sheath facilitate ureteroscopy? J Urol. 2001;165:789–93.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  39. Seto C, Ishiura Y, Egawa M. Durability of working channel in flexible ureteroscopes when inserting ureteroscopic devices. J Endourol. 2006;20:223–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Chew BH. Durability of the next-generation flexible fiberoptic ureteroscopes: a randomized prospective multi-institutional trial. Editorial reply. Urology. 2010;75(3):538.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Benito J, Abraham A, Corollas S, et al. Effects of Steris 1TM sterilization and Cidex® ortho-phthalaldehyde high-level disinfection on durability of new generation Flexible ureteroscopes. J Endourol. 2007;21(9):985–92.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Healy KA, Pak RW, Cleary RC, et al. Hand problems among endourologists. J Endourol. 2011;25:1915–20.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Ingram JN, Kording KP, Howard IS, et al. The statistics of natural hand movements. Exp Brain Res. 2008;188:223–36.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Pearlman JL, Roach SS, Valero-Cuevas FJ, et al. The fundamental thumb-tip force vectors produced by the muscle of the thumb. J Orthop Res. 2004;22:306–12.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Humphreys M, Miller NL, Williams JC, et al. A new world revealed: early experience with digital ureteroscopy. J Urol. 2008;179:970–5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Castellanos JAC. SolidFlex™—the fourth generation in endoscopy. Arch Esp Urol. 2009;62(7):573–9.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. Bansal H, Swain S, Sharma GK, et al. Polyscope: a new era in flexible ureteroscopy. J Endourol. 2011;25(2):317–21.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Vincent G. Bird M.D. .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2013 Springer Science+Business Media New York

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Bird, V.G. (2013). Flexible Ureteroscopes: Fiberoptic and Digital. In: Monga, M. (eds) Ureteroscopy. Current Clinical Urology. Humana Press, Totowa, NJ. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-62703-206-3_9

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-62703-206-3_9

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Humana Press, Totowa, NJ

  • Print ISBN: 978-1-62703-205-6

  • Online ISBN: 978-1-62703-206-3

  • eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics