*La tecnología MOSES™ 2.0 incluye todos los ajustes y características de MOSES™ 1.0.
**Las emisiones del alcance 1 son emisiones directas procedentes de fuentes propias o controladas.
Las emisiones del alcance 2 son emisiones indirectas procedentes de la generación de la energía adquirida.
Las emisiones del alcance 3 son todas las emisiones indirectas (no incluidas en el alcance 2) que se producen en la cadena de valor de la empresa que realiza la notificación, e incluye tanto las emisiones ascendentes como las descendentes.
† Los resultados del banco de pruebas no son necesariamente indicativos del rendimiento clínico. Las pruebas fueron realizadas en nombre de BSC. Metodología del estudio: Las pruebas fueron realizadas por un tercero independiente con el método in vitro BEST™ para evaluar la adhesión de sal en los stents ureterales. Se probaron un total de 30 muestras de cada familia de stents ureterales en un modelo de orina artificial estéril y en un modelo de infección bacteriana (n = 15 en cada modelo) durante 2 semanas. Se usó Proteus Mirabilis como el reto microbiano en el modelo de infección bacteriana debido a su producción conocida de la ureasa y su implicación en la formación de estruvita.
‡ Los resultados del banco de pruebas no son necesariamente indicativos del rendimiento clínico. La reducción en el durómetro del stent representa la caída porcentual promedio en el durómetro del stent de 25 a 37 °C en aire.
Las imágenes de los cálculos renales son meramente ilustrativas. Fuente: Getty Images y Adobe Stock.
Referencias
1. Datos en los archivos de Boston Scientific.
2. Mager R, et al. Clinical outcomes and costs of reusable and single-use flexible ureterorenoscopes: a prospective cohort study. Urolithiasis. 2018 Nov;46(6):587-593.
3. Joice GA, et al. Ergonomics and procedure time of novel retrieval deployment device for single surgeon ureteroscopy. Abstract presented at EUS Annual Meeting, May 18, 2018, San Francisco, CA
4. Ibrahim A, et al. Double-Blinded Prospective Randomized Clinical Trial Comparing Regular and Moses Modes of Holmium Laser Lithotripsy. J Endourol. 2020 May;34(5):624‐8.
5. Cinman NM, et al. Afecciones asociadas y tratamiento del riñón pélvico. In: Smith AD, Badlani GH, Preminger GM, Kavoussi LR eds. Smith’s Textbook of Endourology. Blackwell Publishing;2012;(62):707-715
6. Elhilali MM, et al. Use of the Moses Technology to Improve Holmium Laser Lithotripsy Outcomes: A Preclinical Study. J Endourol. 2017 Jun;31(6):598-604.
7. Mues AC, et al. Evaluation of 24 holmium:YAG laser optical fibers for flexible ureteroscopy. J Urol. 2009 Jul;182(1):348-54.
8. Carey RI et al. Frequency of ureteroscope damage seen at a tertiary care center. J Urol. 2006 Aug;176(2):607-10.
9. Collins JW, et al. Cost analysis of flexible ureterorenoscopy. BJU Int. 2004 May;93(7):1023-6.
10. Chi T et al. Durability of flexible ureteroscopy and predictors of repair: A prospective multi-center study. Poster session presented at The European Association of Urology Annual Congress; 2016 March; Munich, Germany.
11. Carey RI and Carey MS. The Ureteroscope Matters: Matched Pari Analysis Reveals Increased Operative Time and Reoperation Associated with the Use of Refurbished Flexible Ureterosocpes from a Third Party Out-sourced Vendor. Poster session presented at: Southeast Section American Urological Association Annual Meeting; 24 March 2017; Austin, TX.
12. Hubosky et al. Defining the rate of encountering unacceptable reusable flexible ureteroscopes for immediate clinical use: 'Bad out of the Box.' Poster Session presented at The World Congress of Endourology, September 2017; Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada (MP3-10).
13. Matlaga B. Moving from four hands to two during flexible ureteroscopy with stone manipulation. Abstract presented at the World Congress of Endourology, 2018, Paris
14. Cvetic E. Communication in the perioperative setting. AORN J. 2011 Sep;94(3): 261-70.
15. Gillespie, B. M., et al. Interruptions and Miscommunications in surgery: an observational study. 2012 AORN Journal, 95(5), 576-590.
16. Clark, C. M., & Kenski, D. Promoting civility in the OR: an ethical imperative. 2016 AORN Journal, 105(1), 60-66.
17. Agarwal DK, et al. Catheter removal on the same day of holmium laser enucleation of the prostate: Outcomes of a pilot study. Urology. 2020 Dec;146:225‐9.
18. Tracey J, et al. Ureteroscopic High‐Frequency Dusting Utilizing a 120‐W Holmium Laser. J Endourol. 2018 Apr;32(4):290‐
19. Tokas T, et al. Pressure matters: intrarenal pressures during normal and pathological conditions, and impact of increased values to renal physiology. World J Urol. 2019 Jan;37(1):125-31.
20. Sutcliffe KM, et al. Communication failures: an insidious contributor to medical mishaps. Acad Med. 2004;79(2):186-194.
21. Kawahara T, et al. Ureteral Stent Encrustation, Incrustation, and Coloring: Morbidity Related to Indwelling Times J Endourol. 2012 Feb;26(2):178-82.
22. Ofstead C et al. The effectiveness of sterilization for flexible ureteroscopes: A real-world study. Am J Infect Control. 2017 Aug 1;45(8):888-895.
23. Ofstead CL. Endoscope reprocessing methods: a prospective study on the impact of human factors and automation. Gastroenterol Nurs. 2010 Jul-Aug;33(4):304-11.
24. SM Hession. Endoscope Disinfection by Orthophthalaldehyde in a Clinical Setting An Evaluation of Reprocessing Time and Costs Compared With Glutaraldehyde. Gastroenterol Nurs. 2003 May-Jun;26(3):110-4
25. Park HK, et al. The impact of ureteral stent type on patient symptoms as determined by the ureteral stent symptom questionnaire : a prospective, randomized, controlled study. J Endourol. 2015 Mar;29(3):367-71. 4
26. Davis NF, et al. Carbon Footprint in Flexible Ureteroscopy: A Comparative Study on the Environmental Impact of Reusable and Single-Use Ureteroscopes. J Endourol. 2018 Mar;32(3):214-217.
27. Pfiedler Enterprises. The care and handling of rigid and flexible scopes (an online continuing education activity). Aurora, CO, 2013.
28. Rutala WA., WeberDJ., & Healthcare Infection Control Practices Advisory Committee. Guideline for disinfection and sterilization in healthcare facilities. Atlanta, GA: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2008.
29. Clemens JQ, et al. Joint AUA/SUNA white paper on reprocessing of flexible cystoscopes. The Journal of Urology. 184(6):2241-2245, 2014.
30. Smith DR, et al. Exposición al glutaraldehído y su impacto laboral en el entorno sanitario. Environmental Health and Preventive Medicine. 11(1):3-10, 2006.
31. Takigawa T, Endo Y. Effects of glutaraldehyde exposure on human health. Journal of Occupational Health. 48(2):75-87, 2006.
32. Rideout K, et al. Considering risks to healthcare workers from glutaraldehyde alternatives in high-level disinfection. Journal of Hospital Infection. 59(1):4-11, 2005.
33. Olympus Medical Systems Corporation. Uretero-reno videoscope Olympus URF Type V. Japan, 2014.
34. PENTAX Medical Company. Pentax ureteroreno fiberscope FUR-9P. Japan, 2011.
35. Richard Wolf Medical Instruments Corporation. Flexible fiber ureterorenoscopes 7325.071/7325.076. United States, 2013.
36. Stryker Corporation. Stryker ideal eyes HD URT-7000S/7000Si flexible video ureteroscope. United States, 2012.