Home  |   Archive  |   Online Submission  |   News & Events  |   Subscribe  |   APFA  |   Society  |   Contact Us  |   中文版
Search   
 
Journal

Ahead of print
Authors' Accepted
    Manuscripts
new!
Current Issue
Archive
Acknowledgments
Special Issues
Browse by Category

Manuscript Submission

Online Submission
Online Review
Instruction for Authors
Instruction for Reviewers
English Corner new!

About AJA

About AJA
Editorial Board
Contact Us
News

Resources & Services

Advertisement
Subscription
Email alert
Proceedings
Reprints

Download area

Copyright licence
EndNote style file
Manuscript word template
Guidance for AJA figures
    preparation (in English)

Guidance for AJA figures
    preparation (in Chinese)

Proof-reading for the
    authors

AJA Club (in English)
AJA Club (in Chinese)

 
Abstract

Volume 7, Issue 4 (July 2005) 7, 433–438; 10.1111/j.1745-7262.2005.00077.x

Evaluation of the mechanisms of damage to flexible ureteroscopes and suggestions for ureteroscope preservation

P Sooriakumaran, R Kaba, H O Andrews and N P N Buchholz

1.Department of Urology, Royal Surrey County Hospital, Guildford, GU2 7XX, UK
2.Department of Urology, St Bartholomew's Hospital, London EC1A 7BE, UK

Correspondence: Mr Noor Buchholz, Department of Urology, St Bartholomews Hospital, London EC1A 7BE, UK. Tel: +44-207-601-8394, Fax: +44-207-601-7844 E-mail: nielspeter@yahoo.com

Received: 2005-01-10 Accepted: 2005-04-28

Abstract

Aim: To investigate the causes and costs of flexible ureteroscope damage, and to develop recommendations to limit damage.

Methods: The authors analysed repair figures and possible causes of damage to 35 instruments sent for repair to a leading UK supplier over a 1-year period, and calculated cost figures for maintenance of the instruments as opposed to repair and replacement costs.

Results: All damages were handling-induced and therefore did not fall under the manufacturer's warranty: 28 % were damaged by misfiring of the laser inside the instrument; 72 %, mainly crushing and stripping of the ureteroscope shaft tube, were likely to have occurred during out-of-surgery handling, washing and disinfection. Seventeen (4 %) instruments were not repaired and consequently taken out of service due to the extensive costs involved. Eighteen (51 %) ureteroscopes were repaired at an average cost of 10 833 USD.

Conclusion: Damages to flexible ureteroscopes bear considerable costs. Most damages occur during handling between surgical procedures. Thorough adherence to handling procedures, and courses for theater staff and surgeons on handling flexible instruments may help to reduce these damages and prove a cost-saving investment. The authors provide a list of recommended procedural measures that may help to prevent such damages.

Keywords: ureteroscopes, manufacturer's assessment, durability, instrument handling

Full Text |

 
Browse:  3314
 
Asian Journal of Andrology CN 31-1795/R ISSN 1008-682X  Copyright © 2023  Shanghai Materia Medica, Chinese Academy of Sciences.  All rights reserved.