OJU  Vol.3 No.2 , May 2013
Measurement of Stone Diameter with Three Sizes of Automatically Fixating Stone Baskets
Abstract: Background: Complications after endoscopic retrieval of kidney and ureter stones are obviously related to the size of the stones as well as the experience of the surgeon and other factors. During the procedure it is sometimes difficult for surgeons to estimate stone size and therefore give prognostic advises. The visual perception of the stone size depends on the shape, colour, distance to the renoscope and dilatation of the ureter. This is the so-called binding problem, because shape, color and direction of motion are processed separately by different population of optical neurons. In order to establish a better prognostic rational especially for less experienced surgeons, we established an intra operative semi-quantitative measurement of the stone size supported by a stone basket. Materials and Methods: We modified the tipped, nitinol stone baskets from the company Urotech with diameters of 2.5, 3.0 and 4 FR. The handle of this basket has a spring mechanism, which automatically closes the basket and provides a predefined fixation force of the stones within the basket. On the handle we established a non-linear scale in mm by grabbing standardized balls or standardized screws. Result: The scales are nonlinear because of the nonlinear relation between the diameter of the stone and the distance of the slider. Also the scales differ in between the basket size, because of the different strain conditions due to the different wire sizes and materials or the spring and basket. Conclusion: This scale could be an important orientation for a surgeon during endourological procedures to estimate stone sizes. After further clinical experience a semi-quantitative visualization like green, yellow and red colors could help to predict potential complications due to large stone sizes. Finally it could bevery interesting for other disciplines like gastroenterology.
Cite this paper: J. Cordes, F. Nguyen, W. Pinkowski and D. Jocham, "Measurement of Stone Diameter with Three Sizes of Automatically Fixating Stone Baskets," Open Journal of Urology, Vol. 3 No. 2, 2013, pp. 58-61. doi: 10.4236/oju.2013.32011.

[1]   A. Hesse, E. Br?ndle, D. Wilbert, K.-U. K?hrmann and P. Alken, “Study on the Prevalence and Incidence of Urolithiasis in Germany Comparing the Years 1979 vs. 2000,” European Urology, Vol. 44, No. 6, 2003, pp. 709-713. doi:10.1016/S0302-2838(03)00415-9

[2]   S. C. Müller, R. Hofmann, K.-U. Kohrmann and A. Hesse, “Epidemiologie, Instrumentelle Therapie und Metaphylaxe des Harnsteinleidens,” Deutsches Arzteblatt, Vol. 101, No. 19, 2004, pp. 1331-1336.

[3]   D. Stoeckel, “Nitinol Medical Devices and Implants,” Minimal Invasive Therapy & Allied Technology, Vol. 9, No. 2, 2000, pp. 81-88. doi:10.3109/13645700009063054

[4]   O. M. Elashry, A. K. Elgasmasy, M. A. Sabaa, M. AboElenien, M. A. Omar, H. H. Eltatawy and S. A. El-Abd, “Ureteroscopic Management of Lower Ureteric Calculi: A 15-Year Single-Centre Experience,” British Journal of Urology International, Vol. 102, No. 8, 2008, pp. 1010-1017. doi:10.1111/j.1464-410X.2008.07747.x

[5]   A. F. Abdelrahim, A. Abdelmaguid, H. Abuzeid, M. Amin, El S. Mousa and F. Abdelrahim, “Rigid Ureteroscopy for Ureteral Stones: Factors Associated with Intraoperative Adverse Events,” Journal of Endourology, Vol. 22, No. 2, 2008, pp. 277-280. doi:10.1089/end.2007.0072

[6]   A. Treisman, “The Binding Problem,” Current Opinion Neurobiology, Vol. 6, No. 2, 1996, pp. 171-178. doi:10.1016/S0959-4388(96)80070-5

[7]   M. Masahiko, M. Shigemitsu and M. Hiromi, “Attribute Pair-Based Visual Recognition and Memory,” PLoS One, Vol. 5, No. 5, 2010, p. e9571. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0009571

[8]   D. Stoeckel, “Umformung von NiTi-Legierungen-Einen Herausforderung,” NDC, 2001, pp. 141-157.