Related Experiment Video
Updated: Apr 17, 2026

Murine Endoscopy for In Vivo Multimodal Imaging of Carcinogenesis and Assessment of Intestinal Wound Healing and Inflammation
Published on: August 26, 2014
[Flexible ureteroscope damages. Evaluation of university hospital service equipment]
J Lasselin1, L Viart1, P Lasselin-Boyard2
1Service d'urologie transplantation, CHU d'Amiens, avenue Laennec, 80480 Salouel, France.
Objective:
To evaluate predictors of flexible ureterorenoscopes breakage and damage of their optical beam.
Materials And Methods:
Retrospective survey, single center on 393 interventions with 4 flexible ureterorenoscopes between January 2009 and March 2013. We analyzed factors linked to patient, pathology and surgical technique.
Results:
We identified 21 major accidents, a breakage rate of 5.34% and 76 pixels losses in the maintenance of endoscopes and 10 during the procedure. The only statistically significant predictor of loss was the cumulative duration of operating time since the last repair (P=0.04, OR=1.001 [1-1001]). For lesions of the optical beam between the procedures, parameters appearing as significant were the ureterorenoscope model (P=0.01, OR=2.558, 95% CI [1229-5326]), the use of instruments by the working channel: the laser (P=0.02, OR=2.06, 95% CI [1109-3827]), or the use of endoluminal graspers (P=0.007, OR=0.467, 95% CI [0269-0809]). Intraoperatively, the number of open or laparoscopic surgery (P=0.007, OR=3.105, 95% CI [1364-7068]), duration of intervention (P=0.01, OR=1.023, 95% CI [1.006-1041]) and the cumulative duration of intervention (P=0.003, OR=1.001, 95% CI [1-1002]) appeared to be statistically significant.
Conclusion:
The only predictor of loss of equipment under repair was the cumulative duration of operation time. It has not been demonstrated any difference between ureterorenoscopes. It was during the endoscopes disinfection that the majority of optical beam lesions take place.

