Skip to main content
Top
Published in: Urolithiasis 2/2007

01-04-2007 | Original Paper

Ureteral access sheath insertion forces: implications for design and training

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

Published in: Urolithiasis | Issue 2/2007

Login to get access

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.
Literature
1.
go back to reference 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.
go back to reference 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.
go back to reference 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.
go back to reference 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.
go back to reference 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.
go back to reference 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.
go back to reference 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.
go back to reference 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.
go back to reference 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.
go back to reference 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
Metadata
Title
Ureteral access sheath insertion forces: implications for design and training
Authors
Renato N. Pedro
Derek Weiland
Scott Reardon
Manoj Monga
Publication date
01-04-2007
Publisher
Springer-Verlag
Published in
Urolithiasis / Issue 2/2007
Print ISSN: 2194-7228
Electronic ISSN: 2194-7236
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00240-007-0086-4

Other articles of this Issue 2/2007

Urolithiasis 2/2007 Go to the issue