Not All Flat-Panel C-Arms Are Created Equal: A Comparison of Three Major Manufacturers.

Introduction: Flat-panel detector C-arms (FCs) are reported to reduce radiation exposure and improve image quality compared with conventional image intensifier C-arms (CCs). The purpose of this study was to compare radiation exposure and image quality between three commonly used FCs. Materials and Methods: A cadaver model was placed in the prone position to simulate percutaneous nephrolithotomy. We compared the following three FCs: OEC Elite CFD from GE HealthCare, Zenition 70 from Philips, and Ziehm Vision RFD from Ziehm Imaging. To measure the radiation dose, optically stimulated luminescence dosimeters (OSLDs) were utilized during five 300-second trials, conducted under three settings: automatic exposure control (AEC), AEC with low dose (LD), and LD with the lowest pulse rate (LDLP). Ten blinded urologists evaluated the image quality. Data were statistically analyzed using the analysis of variance (ANOVA) and Tukey's B post hoc tests. Results: In the AEC setting, the Philips C-arm demonstrated lower ventral OSLD exposure (42,446 mrad) compared with both the GE (51,076 mrad) and Ziehm (83,178 mrad; p < 0.001) C-arms. Similarly, in the LD setting, the Philips C-arm resulted in less ventral OSLD exposure (25,926 mrad) than both the Ziehm (30,956 mrad) and GE (38,209 mrad; p < 0.001) C-arms. Meanwhile, in the LDLP setting, the Ziehm C-arm showed less ventral OSLD exposure (4019 mrad) than both the GE (7418 mrad) and Philips (8229 mrad; p < 0.001) C-arms. All three manufacturers received adequate image quality ratings at the AEC and LD settings. However, at LDLP, the Ziehm C-arm received inadequate ratings in 8% of images, whereas both the GE and Philips C-arms received 100% adequate ratings (p = 0.016). Conclusions: Radiation produced by flat-panel C-arms varies dramatically, with the highest exposure (Ziehm) being almost double the lowest (Philips) in AEC. Improved picture quality at the lowest settings may come at the cost of increased radiation dose. Surgeons should carefully select the machine and settings to minimize radiation exposure while still preserving the image quality.

Reducing hand radiation during renal access for percutaneous nephrolithotomy: a comparison of radiation reduction techniques.

Percutaneous nephrolithotomy confers the highest radiation to the urologist's hands compared to other urologic procedures. This study compares radiation exposure to the surgeon's hand and patient's body when utilizing three different techniques for needle insertion during renal access. Simulated percutaneous renal access was performed using a cadaveric patient and separate cadaveric forearm representing the surgeon's hand. Three different needle-holding techniques were compared: conventional glove (control), a radiation-attenuating glove, and a novel needle holder. Five 300-s fluoroscopy trials were performed per treatment arm. The primary outcome was radiation dose (mSv) to the surgeon's hand. The secondary outcome was radiation dose to the patient. One-way ANOVA and Tukey's B post-hoc tests were performed with p < 0.05 considered significant. Compared to the control (3.92 mSv), both the radiation-attenuating glove (2.48 mSv) and the needle holder (1.37 mSv) reduced hand radiation exposure (p < 0.001). The needle holder reduced hand radiation compared to the radiation-attenuating glove (p < 0.001). The radiation-attenuating glove resulted in greater radiation produced by the C-arm compared to the needle holder (83.49 vs 69.22 mGy; p = 0.019). Patient radiation exposure was significantly higher with the radiation-attenuating glove compared to the needle holder (8.43 vs 7.03 mSv; p = 0.027). Though radiation-attenuating gloves decreased hand radiation dose by 37%, this came at the price of a 3% increase in patient exposure. In contrast, the needle holder reduced exposure to both the surgeon's hand by 65% and the patient by 14%. Thus, a well-designed low-density needle holder could optimize radiation safety for both surgeon and patient.

Time Efficiency and Performance of Single-Use vs Reusable Cystoscopes: A Randomized Benchtop and Simulated Clinical Assessment.

Introduction: A flexible cystoscope is an indispensable tool for urologists, facilitating a variety of procedures in both the operating room and at bedside. Single-use cystoscopes offer benefits including accessibility and decreased burden for reprocessing. The aims of this study were to compare time efficiency and performance of single-use and reusable cystoscopes. Methods: Ten new Ambu® aScope™ 4 Cysto single-use and two Olympus CYF-5 reusable cystoscopes were compared in simulated bedside cystoscopy and benchtop testing. Ten urologists performed simulated cystoscopy using both cystoscopes in a randomized order. Times for supply-gathering, setup, cystoscopy, cleanup, and cumulative time were recorded, followed by a Likert feedback survey. For benchtop assessment, physical, optical, and functional specifications were assessed and compared between cystoscopes. Results: The single-use cystoscope demonstrated shorter supply-gathering, setup, cleanup, and cumulative times (824 vs 1231 seconds; p < 0.05) but a comparable cystoscopy time to the reusable cystoscope (202 vs 212 seconds; p = 0.32). The single-use cystoscope had a higher image resolution, but a narrower field of view. Upward deflection was greater for the single-use cystoscope (214.50° vs 199.45°; p < 0.01) but required greater force (2.5 × ). The working channel diameter and irrigation rate were greater in the reusable cystoscope. While the single-use cystoscope lacked tumor enhancing optical features, it had higher Likert scale scores for Time Efficiency and Overall Satisfaction. Conclusion: The single-use cystoscope demonstrates comparable benchtop performance and superior time efficiency compared to reusable cystoscopes. However, the reusable cystoscope has superior optical versatility and flow rate. Knowledge of these differences allows for optimal cystoscope selection based on procedure indication.

Does renal failure worsen radiation cystitis following radical prostatectomy?

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the impact of renal function on the risk, severity, and management of radiation cystitis in patients who underwent postoperative radiation therapy for prostate cancer. METHODS: Retrospective data was assessed from patients treated with adjuvant/salvage radiation therapy at a single academic institution between 2006 and 2020. The incidence, severity, and management of radiation cystitis were compared between three groups: CKD 0-2, CKD 3-4, and CKD 5. Associations of clinicopathologic factors with radiation cystitis were assessed in univariate and multivariate Cox regression models. RESULTS: A total of 110 patients who underwent radiation therapy following robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy were included. The incidence of radiation cystitis following postoperative radiation therapy was 17% with a median presentation time of 34 months (interquartile range 16-65 months). The incidence of radiation cystitis was 100% in CKD 5 patients compared to 15% in CKD 0-2 and 17% in CKD 3-4 patients (p < 0.001). CKD 5 patients required more treatments, emergency department visits, and longer hospitalization times than CKD 0-4 patients (all p < 0.001). Multivariate analyses identified CKD 5 as the only significant factor associated with radiation cystitis (HR = 10.39, p = 0.026). CONCLUSION: End-stage renal failure is associated with the risk and severity of radiation cystitis in patients receiving postoperative radiation therapy. Knowledge of the potential morbidity of this complication in this population could guide physicians and patients as they evaluate risks and benefits prior to selecting adjuvant or salvage radiation therapy.