A naked-eye comparison of image quality between a portable versus a fixed camera system for digital flexible ureterorenoscopy – A single centre experience

Objective: To assess the image quality using the portable OTV-SI (Olympus, Southend, UK) light source system compared to a dedicated fixed standard stack system for flexible ureterorenoscopy (URS) as judged by the human eye. Methods: We compared two differing flexible URS set-ups. The first was our...

Descripción completa

Guardado en:

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales:	Mohamed El Howairis, Noor Buchholz
Formato:	article
Lenguaje:	EN
Publicado:	Taylor & Francis Group 2017
Materias:	Endoscopy Flexible ureterorenoscopy Light source Imaging quality Portable Diseases of the genitourinary system. Urology RC870-923
Acceso en línea:	https://doaj.org/article/d922eab6a1b442f398b217f5f6d3f5ec
Etiquetas:	Agregar Etiqueta Sin Etiquetas, Sea el primero en etiquetar este registro!

id	oai:doaj.org-article:d922eab6a1b442f398b217f5f6d3f5ec
record_format	dspace
spelling	oai:doaj.org-article:d922eab6a1b442f398b217f5f6d3f5ec2021-12-02T12:24:08ZA naked-eye comparison of image quality between a portable versus a fixed camera system for digital flexible ureterorenoscopy – A single centre experience2090-598X10.1016/j.aju.2017.03.003https://doaj.org/article/d922eab6a1b442f398b217f5f6d3f5ec2017-09-01T00:00:00Zhttp://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2090598X17300396https://doaj.org/toc/2090-598XObjective: To assess the image quality using the portable OTV-SI (Olympus, Southend, UK) light source system compared to a dedicated fixed standard stack system for flexible ureterorenoscopy (URS) as judged by the human eye. Methods: We compared two differing flexible URS set-ups. The first was our normal completely digital fixed set-up, comprising a flexible ureteroscope and matching digital stack system (CLV-S40 PRO-6E, Olympus). The second set-up comprised the same digital ureteroscope but with a conventional non-digital stack system and the OTV-SI portable light source. Seven experienced urologists were asked to subjectively assess the quality of the video sequences with the naked eye. The image qualities assessed were as follows: colour, distortion, graininess, depth perception, contrast, and glare. Finally, they were asked to guess whether they were observing images from the normal fixed set-up or the portable set-up. Fisher’s exact test was used to compare the two sets of nominal variables. Results: There were no significant differences in the observation ratings between the fixed and portable systems, independent of observer or image settings. Also, the surgeons were not able to correctly guess which stack system had been used. Conclusion: For flexible URS imaging, the combination of a digital ureteroscope with a conventional non-digital stack system together with the OTV-SI portable light source was subjectively found not to be inferior to the completely digital fixed set-up. Thus, the cheaper and smaller portable system could be considered as an economical option without substantial loss of image quality, especially useful in developing countries.Mohamed El HowairisNoor BuchholzTaylor & Francis GrouparticleEndoscopyFlexible ureterorenoscopyLight sourceImaging qualityPortableDiseases of the genitourinary system. UrologyRC870-923ENArab Journal of Urology, Vol 15, Iss 3, Pp 211-215 (2017)
institution	DOAJ
collection	DOAJ
language	EN
topic	Endoscopy Flexible ureterorenoscopy Light source Imaging quality Portable Diseases of the genitourinary system. Urology RC870-923
spellingShingle	Endoscopy Flexible ureterorenoscopy Light source Imaging quality Portable Diseases of the genitourinary system. Urology RC870-923 Mohamed El Howairis Noor Buchholz A naked-eye comparison of image quality between a portable versus a fixed camera system for digital flexible ureterorenoscopy – A single centre experience
description	Objective: To assess the image quality using the portable OTV-SI (Olympus, Southend, UK) light source system compared to a dedicated fixed standard stack system for flexible ureterorenoscopy (URS) as judged by the human eye. Methods: We compared two differing flexible URS set-ups. The first was our normal completely digital fixed set-up, comprising a flexible ureteroscope and matching digital stack system (CLV-S40 PRO-6E, Olympus). The second set-up comprised the same digital ureteroscope but with a conventional non-digital stack system and the OTV-SI portable light source. Seven experienced urologists were asked to subjectively assess the quality of the video sequences with the naked eye. The image qualities assessed were as follows: colour, distortion, graininess, depth perception, contrast, and glare. Finally, they were asked to guess whether they were observing images from the normal fixed set-up or the portable set-up. Fisher’s exact test was used to compare the two sets of nominal variables. Results: There were no significant differences in the observation ratings between the fixed and portable systems, independent of observer or image settings. Also, the surgeons were not able to correctly guess which stack system had been used. Conclusion: For flexible URS imaging, the combination of a digital ureteroscope with a conventional non-digital stack system together with the OTV-SI portable light source was subjectively found not to be inferior to the completely digital fixed set-up. Thus, the cheaper and smaller portable system could be considered as an economical option without substantial loss of image quality, especially useful in developing countries.
format	article
author	Mohamed El Howairis Noor Buchholz
author_facet	Mohamed El Howairis Noor Buchholz
author_sort	Mohamed El Howairis
title	A naked-eye comparison of image quality between a portable versus a fixed camera system for digital flexible ureterorenoscopy – A single centre experience
title_short	A naked-eye comparison of image quality between a portable versus a fixed camera system for digital flexible ureterorenoscopy – A single centre experience
title_full	A naked-eye comparison of image quality between a portable versus a fixed camera system for digital flexible ureterorenoscopy – A single centre experience
title_fullStr	A naked-eye comparison of image quality between a portable versus a fixed camera system for digital flexible ureterorenoscopy – A single centre experience
title_full_unstemmed	A naked-eye comparison of image quality between a portable versus a fixed camera system for digital flexible ureterorenoscopy – A single centre experience
title_sort	naked-eye comparison of image quality between a portable versus a fixed camera system for digital flexible ureterorenoscopy – a single centre experience
publisher	Taylor & Francis Group
publishDate	2017
url	https://doaj.org/article/d922eab6a1b442f398b217f5f6d3f5ec
work_keys_str_mv	AT mohamedelhowairis anakedeyecomparisonofimagequalitybetweenaportableversusafixedcamerasystemfordigitalflexibleureterorenoscopyasinglecentreexperience AT noorbuchholz anakedeyecomparisonofimagequalitybetweenaportableversusafixedcamerasystemfordigitalflexibleureterorenoscopyasinglecentreexperience AT mohamedelhowairis nakedeyecomparisonofimagequalitybetweenaportableversusafixedcamerasystemfordigitalflexibleureterorenoscopyasinglecentreexperience AT noorbuchholz nakedeyecomparisonofimagequalitybetweenaportableversusafixedcamerasystemfordigitalflexibleureterorenoscopyasinglecentreexperience
_version_	1718394484276854784

A naked-eye comparison of image quality between a portable versus a fixed camera system for digital flexible ureterorenoscopy – A single centre experience

Ejemplares similares