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.

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.