Novel everting urologic access sheath: decreased axial forces during insertion.

BACKGROUND Advancement of urologic instruments through the genitourinary tract is associated with significant axial forces that likely contribute to patient discomfort, even after injection of a local anesthetic, and may lead to mucosal trauma, postprocedural dysuria and hematuria, and increased susceptibility to infection and strictures. Placing an everting urethral sheath prior to instrumentation may decrease these problems. MATERIALS AND METHODS Two 7-cm-long, 5-mm diameter urethral luminal models were created, one with and one without an artificial stricture. We measured the forces generated during advancement of a novel everting access sheath (Cystoglide; Percutaneous Systems, Mountain View, CA) through the models in comparison with a representative cystoscope and a urologic dilator simulating a traditional access sheath. RESULTS The mean force generated during advancement of the everting sheath was significantly less than that of both the representative cystoscope (P<0.01) and the traditional access sheath (P<0.01). This held true for the urethral models both with and without an artificial stricture (P<0.01) and with and without lubrication (P<0.01). CONCLUSIONS This novel introduction sheath markedly decreased the axial forces applied to an artificial urethral luminal wall. It is possible that the clinical use of this technology will decrease the discomfort and potential complications associated with lower urinary-tract endoscopy.

[1]  T. Shah,et al.  Is Using Lignocaine Gel prior to Flexible Cystoscopy Justified? , 2003, Urologia Internationalis.

[2]  G. McCleane,et al.  Lignocaine gel: does it cause urethral pain rather than prevent it? , 2003, European urology.

[3]  K. Ogura,et al.  Is instillation of anesthetic gel necessary in flexible cystoscopic examination? A prospective randomized study. , 2003, Urology.

[4]  J. Virdi,et al.  Effect of the Rate of Delivery of Lignocaine Gel on Patient Discomfort Perception prior to Performing Flexible Cystoscopy , 2002, Urologia Internationalis.

[5]  D. Shackley,et al.  The community‐based morbidity of flexible cystoscopy , 2002, BJU international.

[6]  P. Irby,et al.  Radially expanding single-step nephrostomy tract dilator. , 2001, Urology.

[7]  M. Carrier,et al.  Arterial balloon catheter: a new atraumatic device for dilating arterial grafts. , 2001, The Annals of thoracic surgery.

[8]  H. Herr,et al.  Outpatient flexible cystoscopy in men: a randomized study of patient tolerance. , 2001, The Journal of urology.

[9]  S. Ganapathy,et al.  Randomized trial of 10 mL and 20 mL of 2% intraurethral lidocaine gel and placebo in men undergoing flexible cystoscopy. , 2001, Journal of endourology.

[10]  D. Galen,et al.  Reduction of cannula-related laparoscopic complications using a radially expanding access device. , 1999, The Journal of the American Association of Gynecologic Laparoscopists.

[11]  M. S. Nathan,et al.  A prospective, randomized, double-blind study comparing lignocaine gel and plain lubricating gel in relieving pain during flexible cystoscopy. , 1997, British journal of urology.

[12]  T. Karrison,et al.  Randomized, prospective, double-blind study of the effects on pain perception of lidocaine jelly versus plain lubricant during outpatient rigid cystoscopy. , 1997, The Journal of urology.

[13]  H. Taub,et al.  The effects of intraurethral lidocaine anesthetic and patient anxiety on pain perception during cystoscopy. , 1994, The Journal of urology.

[14]  G. Chisholm,et al.  Morbidity following cystoscopy: comparison of flexible and rigid techniques. , 1990, British journal of urology.

[15]  G. Mclean,et al.  Shear stress in the performance of esophageal dilation: comparison of balloon dilation and bougienage. , 1989, Radiology.

[16]  E. Milroy,et al.  Rigid versus flexible cystoscopy. A controlled trial of patient tolerance. , 1988, British journal of urology.

[17]  P. H. Powell,et al.  A flexible cystoscope. , 1984, British journal of urology.