TY - JOUR
T1 - How to evaluate a flexible ureterorenoscope? Systematic mapping of existing evaluation methods
AU - Hendriks, Nora
AU - Henderickx, Michaël M. E. L.
AU - Schout, Barbara M. A.
AU - Baard, Joyce
AU - van Etten-Jamaludin, Faridi S.
AU - Beerlage, Harrie P.
AU - Pelger, Rob C. M.
AU - Kamphuis, Guido M.
N1 - Publisher Copyright: © 2021 The Authors. BJU International published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of BJU International
PY - 2021/10
Y1 - 2021/10
N2 - 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.
AB - 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.
KW - evaluation
KW - ureterorenoscope
KW - ureteroscope
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85111847336&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - https://doi.org/10.1111/bju.15544
DO - https://doi.org/10.1111/bju.15544
M3 - Review article
C2 - 34242475
SN - 1464-4096
VL - 128
SP - 408
EP - 423
JO - BJU international
JF - BJU international
IS - 4
ER -