Suppr超能文献

体外输尿管镜模型中自动冲洗系统的比较。

Comparison of automated irrigation systems using an in vitro ureteroscopy model.

机构信息

Cleveland Clinic, Glickman Kidney & Urological Institute, Cleveland, OH, USA.

出版信息

Int Braz J Urol. 2020 May-Jun;46(3):390-397. doi: 10.1590/S1677-5538.IBJU.2019.0230.

Abstract

INTRODUCTION

Two automated irrigation systems have been released for use during endoscopic procedures such as ureteroscopy: the Cogentix RocaFlow® (CRF) and Thermedx FluidSmart® (TFS). Accurate pressure control using automated systems may help providers maintain irrigation pressures within a safe range while also providing clear visualization. Our objective was to directly compare these systems based on their pressure accuracy, pressure-flow relationships, and fluid heating capabilities in order to help providers better utilize the temperature and pressure settings of each system.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

An in vitro ureteroscopy model was used for testing, consisting of a short semirigid ureteroscope (6/7, 5F, 31cm Wolf 425612) connected to a continuous digital pressure transducer (Meriam m1550). Each system pressure output and flow-rate, via 100mL beaker filling time, was measured using multiple trials at pressure settings between 30 and 300mmHg. Output fluid temperature was monitored using a digital thermometer (Omega DP25-TH).

RESULTS

The pressure output of both systems exceeded the desired setting across the entire tested range, a difference of 15.7±2.4mmHg for the TFS compared to 5.2±1.5mmHg for the CRF (p < 0.0001). Related to this finding, the TFS also had slightly higher flow rates across all trials (7±2mL/min). Temperature testing revealed a similar maximum temperature of 34.0⁰C with both systems, however, the TFS peaked after only 8 minutes and started to plateau as early as 4-5 minutes into the test, while the CRF took over 18 minutes to reach a similar peak.

CONCLUSIONS

Our in vitro ureteroscopy testing found that the CRF system had better pressure accuracy than the TFS system but with noticeably slower fluid heating capabilities. Each system provided steady irrigation at safe pressures within their expected operating parameters with small differences in performance that should not limit their ability to provide steady irrigation at safe pressures.

摘要

简介

两种自动化灌溉系统已被用于内窥镜手术,如输尿管镜检查:Cogentix RocaFlow®(CRF)和 Thermedx FluidSmart®(TFS)。使用自动化系统进行准确的压力控制可能有助于提供者在保持安全范围内的冲洗压力的同时提供清晰的可视化。我们的目标是直接比较这些系统,以评估其压力精度、压力-流量关系以及流体加热能力,以便帮助提供者更好地利用每个系统的温度和压力设置。

材料与方法

体外输尿管镜检查模型用于测试,包括一个短半刚性输尿管镜(6/7,5F,31cm Wolf 425612),连接到连续数字压力传感器(Meriam m1550)。在 30 至 300mmHg 的压力设置下,使用多个试验测量每个系统的压力输出和流量-通过 100mL 烧杯填充时间。使用数字温度计(Omega DP25-TH)监测输出液体温度。

结果

两个系统的压力输出都超过了整个测试范围内的设定值,TFS 的差值为 15.7±2.4mmHg,而 CRF 的差值为 5.2±1.5mmHg(p<0.0001)。与这一发现相关的是,TFS 在所有试验中也有稍高的流量(7±2mL/min)。温度测试显示两种系统的最大温度相似,均为 34.0°C,然而,TFS 在仅 8 分钟后达到峰值,并在测试的 4-5 分钟开始趋于平稳,而 CRF 需要 18 分钟才能达到类似的峰值。

结论

我们的体外输尿管镜检查测试发现,CRF 系统的压力精度优于 TFS 系统,但流体加热能力明显较慢。每个系统在其预期工作参数内提供稳定的冲洗压力,性能差异较小,不应限制其在安全压力下提供稳定冲洗的能力。

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验