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

Autor: Hendriks N; Department of Urology, Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.; Department of Urology, Alrijne Hospital, Leiderdorp, the Netherlands., Henderickx MMEL; Department of Urology, Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.; Department of Urology, GZA Hospitals, Antwerp, Belgium., Schout BMA; Department of Urology, Alrijne Hospital, Leiderdorp, the Netherlands., Baard J; Department of Urology, Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, the Netherlands., van Etten-Jamaludin FS; Research Support, Medical library location AMC, Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, the Netherlands., Beerlage HP; Department of Urology, Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, the Netherlands., Pelger RCM; Department of Urology, Leids UMC, University of Leiden, Leiden, the Netherlands., Kamphuis GM; Department of Urology, Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
Jazyk: angličtina
Zdroj: BJU international [BJU Int] 2021 Oct; Vol. 128 (4), pp. 408-423. Date of Electronic Publication: 2021 Aug 03.
DOI: 10.1111/bju.15544
Abstrakt: 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 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.
(© 2021 The Authors. BJU International published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of BJU International.)
Databáze: MEDLINE
Externí odkaz:
Nepřihlášeným uživatelům se plný text nezobrazuje