Skip to main content
Erschienen in: Urolithiasis 2/2007

01.04.2007 | Original Paper

Ureteral access sheath insertion forces: implications for design and training

verfasst von: Renato N. Pedro, Derek Weiland, Scott Reardon, Manoj Monga

Erschienen in: Urolithiasis | Ausgabe 2/2007

Einloggen, um Zugang zu erhalten

Abstract

Ureteral access sheaths (UAS) vary in their ability to resist buckling forces. We evaluated the forces utilized during simulated placement of a UAS. A model UAS (21F OD, 9F ID) was made of polyolefin material. Mounted to the distal tip of the catheter was a spring (7/32″ × 1″ × 0.28″ wire thickness). When simulating catheter insertion, the spring was placed in contact with an Extech 475040 Digital Force Gauge to measure the peak compression force (Newton). Three repetitions of the task were performed by practicing urologists (n = 8) and urology residents (n = 5). Participants were instructed to “Push until you feel a level of resistance that would make you stop if you were putting in a real ureteral access sheath”. Urologists applied a maximum force of 6.55 ± 0.45 N while urology residents applied a maximum force of 4.84 ± 0.64 N. There was a significant difference in the forces applied between the two groups (P = 0.035). No significant difference in the variance (ranges or spread) of forces applied by the urologists and residents were identified (P = 0.11). One-way analysis of variance demonstrated no differences in the force applied between the first, second and third attempt (P = 0.80). Quantifying the insertion forces used during placement of a UAS will facilitate the design of UAS and provides information critical to the design of ureteroscopic simulators. Understanding the range of forces used by experienced urologists will help establish competency parameters for professionals in training.
Literatur
1.
Zurück zum Zitat Kourambas J, Byrne RR, Preminger GM (2001) Does a ureteral access sheath facilitate ureteroscopy? J Urol 165(3):789–793PubMedCrossRef Kourambas J, Byrne RR, Preminger GM (2001) Does a ureteral access sheath facilitate ureteroscopy? J Urol 165(3):789–793PubMedCrossRef
2.
Zurück zum Zitat Takayasu H, Aso Y (1974) Recent development for pyeloureteroscopy: guide tube method for its introduction into the ureter. J Urol 112(2):176–178PubMed Takayasu H, Aso Y (1974) Recent development for pyeloureteroscopy: guide tube method for its introduction into the ureter. J Urol 112(2):176–178PubMed
3.
Zurück zum Zitat Pandley P (2003) Complications in application of ureteral access sheaths in community urological practice. J Endourol 17:MP28 Pandley P (2003) Complications in application of ureteral access sheaths in community urological practice. J Endourol 17:MP28
4.
Zurück zum Zitat Vanlangendonck R, Landman J (2004) Ureteral access strategies: pro-access sheath. Urol Clin North Am 31(1):71–81PubMedCrossRef Vanlangendonck R, Landman J (2004) Ureteral access strategies: pro-access sheath. Urol Clin North Am 31(1):71–81PubMedCrossRef
5.
Zurück zum Zitat Pietrow PK, Auge BK, Delvecchio FC, Silverstein AD, Weizer AZ, Albala DM, Preminger GM (2002) Techniques to maximize flexible ureteroscope longevity. Urology 60(5):784–788PubMedCrossRef Pietrow PK, Auge BK, Delvecchio FC, Silverstein AD, Weizer AZ, Albala DM, Preminger GM (2002) Techniques to maximize flexible ureteroscope longevity. Urology 60(5):784–788PubMedCrossRef
6.
Zurück zum Zitat Rehman J, Monga M, Landman J, Lee DI, Felfela T, Conradie MC, Srinivas R, Sundaram CP, Clayman RV (2003) Characterization of intrapelvic pressure during ureteropyeloscopy with ureteral access sheaths. Urology 61(4):713–718PubMedCrossRef Rehman J, Monga M, Landman J, Lee DI, Felfela T, Conradie MC, Srinivas R, Sundaram CP, Clayman RV (2003) Characterization of intrapelvic pressure during ureteropyeloscopy with ureteral access sheaths. Urology 61(4):713–718PubMedCrossRef
7.
Zurück zum Zitat Abrahams HM, Stoller ML (2004) The argument against the routine use of ureteral access sheaths. Urol Clin North Am 31(1):83–87PubMedCrossRef Abrahams HM, Stoller ML (2004) The argument against the routine use of ureteral access sheaths. Urol Clin North Am 31(1):83–87PubMedCrossRef
8.
Zurück zum Zitat Monga M, Gawlik A, Durfee W (2004) Systematic evaluation of ureteral access sheaths. Urology 63(5):834–836PubMedCrossRef Monga M, Gawlik A, Durfee W (2004) Systematic evaluation of ureteral access sheaths. Urology 63(5):834–836PubMedCrossRef
9.
Zurück zum Zitat Michel MS, Knoll T, Kohrmann KU, Alken P (2002) The URO Mentor development and evaluation of a new computer-based interactive training system for virtual life-like simulation of diagnostic and therapeutic endourological procedures. BJU Int 89(3):174–177PubMedCrossRef Michel MS, Knoll T, Kohrmann KU, Alken P (2002) The URO Mentor development and evaluation of a new computer-based interactive training system for virtual life-like simulation of diagnostic and therapeutic endourological procedures. BJU Int 89(3):174–177PubMedCrossRef
10.
Zurück zum Zitat Weiland D, Reardon S, Monga M (2006) Ureteral access sheath insertion forces. J Endourol 20(suppl 1):MP5–02 Weiland D, Reardon S, Monga M (2006) Ureteral access sheath insertion forces. J Endourol 20(suppl 1):MP5–02
Metadaten
Titel
Ureteral access sheath insertion forces: implications for design and training
verfasst von
Renato N. Pedro
Derek Weiland
Scott Reardon
Manoj Monga
Publikationsdatum
01.04.2007
Verlag
Springer-Verlag
Erschienen in
Urolithiasis / Ausgabe 2/2007
Print ISSN: 2194-7228
Elektronische ISSN: 2194-7236
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00240-007-0086-4

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 2/2007

Urolithiasis 2/2007 Zur Ausgabe

Update Urologie

Bestellen Sie unseren Fach-Newsletter und bleiben Sie gut informiert.