How to evaluate a flexible ureterorenoscope?: Systematic mapping of existing evaluation methods

Hendriks, N.; Henderickx, M.M.E.L.; Schout, B.M.A.; Baard, J.; Etten-Jamaludin, F.S. van; Beerlage, H.P.; Pelger, R.C.M.; Kamphuis, G.M.

doi:doi:10.1111/bju.15544

Objectives The objective of this study was to identify, map and review scope-related and user-related parameters used to evaluate the quality of flexible ureterorenoscopes. Thereby identifying key items and variability in grading systems. Methods A literature search of four databases (MEDLINE [Ovid], EMBASE [Ovid], Web of Science, Google scholar and the Cochrane Library) was performed according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines encompassing articles published up to August 2020. A total of 2386 articles were screened. Results A total of 48 articles were included in this systematic scoping review. All studies had a prospective design. Five key items in the assessment of flexible ureterorenoscopy were distinguished: 'Manoeuvrability' (87.5%), 'Optics' (64.6%), 'Irrigation' (56.3%), 'Handling' (39.6%) and 'Durability' (35.4%). After regrouping, every key item could be divided into specific subcategories. However, the quality assessment...Show moreObjectives The objective of this study was to identify, map and review scope-related and user-related parameters used to evaluate the quality of flexible ureterorenoscopes. Thereby identifying key items and variability in grading systems. Methods A literature search of four databases (MEDLINE [Ovid], EMBASE [Ovid], Web of Science, Google scholar and the Cochrane Library) was performed according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines encompassing articles published up to August 2020. A total of 2386 articles were screened. Results A total of 48 articles were included in this systematic scoping review. All studies had a prospective design. Five key items in the assessment of flexible ureterorenoscopy were distinguished: 'Manoeuvrability' (87.5%), 'Optics' (64.6%), 'Irrigation' (56.3%), 'Handling' (39.6%) and 'Durability' (35.4%). After regrouping, every key item could be divided into specific subcategories. However, the quality assessment showed a wide variation in denomination, method of measurement, circumstances of measurement, tools used during measurements, number of measurements performed, number of observers, and units of outcomes. Conclusion The research field regarding quality assessment of ureterorenoscopes is heterogeneous. In this systematic scoping review we identified five key parameters: Manoeuvrability, Optics, Irrigation, Handling and Durability, used to grade flexible ureterorenoscopes. However, within these categories we found a wide variety in terms of method of measurements. A standardised, uniform grading tool is required to assess and compare the quality of flexible ureterorenoscopes in the future.Show less

Leiden University Scholarly Publications

View statistics

Documents

In Collections

How to evaluate a flexible ureterorenoscope? Systematic mapping of existing evaluation methods