LithoVue Elite Compared With Single-Use and Reusable Ureteroscopes: A Bench and Human Cadaver Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose: To compare the attributes of the next-generation LithoVue Elite (LVE, Boston Scientific Corporation) with current state-of-the-art single-use and reusable flexible ureteroscopes. Methods: LithoVue Elite is the latest single-use flexible ureteroscope with improved functionality and a novel ability to measure intrarenal pressure. In this study, we compare LVE with 3 single-use ureteroscopes (Pusen, WiScope, and Anqing) and 1 reusable ureteroscope (Olympus). A bench model was used to measure the physical characteristics (tip deflection and irrigation) and image quality (resolution, color accuracy, field of view, and latency). A human cadaveric model was used to score the maneuverability and ergonomics. This abstract shows the least square means from multiway ANOVAs used for analysis. Results: The ureteroscopes showed a tip deflection ranging from 243° to 306° with LVE at 279°. The irrigation rates ranged from 28 to 44 mL/min with LVE at 40 ml/min. LVE had a resolution of 6.34 line pair/mm, while the other scopes ranged from 4.86 to 5.77 line pairs/mm. The color accuracy was quantified with Delta E, an image analysis variable, which ranged from 14 to 42 with LVE at 28. The field of view ranged from 55° to 89°, and LVE was at 89°. The image latency ranged from 41 to 92 ms with LVE at 58 ms. Finally, the maneuverability scores ranged from 3.8 to 4.1 of 5 with LVE scoring 4.1 while the ergonomics scores ranged from 2.4 to 4.8 with LVE scoring 4.4. Conclusion: LithoVue Elite had above average performance compared with single-use and reusable ureteroscopes and upper-range scores for resolution, field of view, maneuverability, and ergonomics. Accordingly, LVE shows promise; however, further research is needed to assess the impact of intrarenal pressure on the standard of care.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".