| Title |
What effect do different 200 μm laser fibres have on deflection and irrigation flow rates in a flexible ureterorenoscope?
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Lasers in Medical Science, May 2015
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s10103-015-1766-x |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Anna E. Wright, Kevin Williams, Nicholas J. Rukin |
| Abstract |
The objective of the study is to evaluate the reduction in flow and scope deflection of four leading 200-μm marketed laser fibres (Boston Scientific Flexiva™ 200, Boston Scientific Flexiva™ Trac Tip 200, Lumenis SlimLine™ EZ200 and Optical Integrity ScopeSafe™) via a flexible ureterorenoscope. A laboratory-based bench test was performed using a Flex X2™ flexible ureterorenoscope. Mean upward/downward deflection angles and flow rates (ml/min) for each fibre were calculated and compared to a control. The Optical Integrity ScopeSafe™ fibre has the least loss of deflection, losing only 8 % upward and 6 % downward deflection. Deflection loss was significantly less with this fibre compared to all other fibres (p < 0.0001). Mean flow rates were significantly greater with the Optical Integrity ScopeSafe™ laser fibre at 23 ml/min (p < 0.0001). Despite all fibres marketed as 200 μm, the deflection and flow properties show marked variations. The Optical Integrity ScopeSafe™ 200-μm laser fibre offers the best overall performance with significantly improved flow rates and the least loss of scope deflection. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 1 | 50% |
| Unknown | 1 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 2 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 3 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 3 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Lecturer | 1 | 33% |
| Other | 1 | 33% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 1 | 33% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 3 | 100% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 14 May 2015.
All research outputs
#15,331,767
of 22,803,211 outputs
Outputs from Lasers in Medical Science
#654
of 1,307 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#156,446
of 264,461 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Lasers in Medical Science
#12
of 32 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,803,211 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,307 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.0. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 264,461 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 32 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 28th percentile – i.e., 28% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.