Fabrication and application of a wireless high‐definition endoscopic system in urological surgeries. (24th March 2022)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Niu, Di; Xu, Qihang; Xu, Hanjiang; Yin, Shuiping; Hao, Zongyao; Shi, Haoqiang; Zhou, Jun; Tai, Sheng; Zou, Zhihui; Yang, Cheng; Liang, Chaozhao
• Is Part Of: BJU international. Volume 131:Number 2(2023)
• Page Start: 183
• Page End: 189
• Publication Date: 2022-03-24
• Subjects: endoscope -- wireless -- portable -- ergonomics -- surgery -- urology; Genitourinary organs -- Diseases -- Periodicals; Genitourinary organs -- Surgery -- Periodicals; Urology -- Periodicals; 616.6
• DOI: 10.1111/bju.15718
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 1464-4096

Abstract

Abstract : Objective: To introduce a wireless high‐definition endoscopic system (WHES) and compare it with a Storz high‐definition (HD) system for image resolution, colour resolution, weight, and costs. Materials and Methods: The WHES incorporated a portable light‐emitting diode light source and a wireless camera module, which can be compatible with different types of endoscopes. Images were wirelessly transmitted to a monitor or mobile platform such as smartphone through a receiver. The International Standards Organization 12233 resolution chart image was used for the comparison of image resolution and Munsell Colour Checker Chart for colour resolution. In all, 38 endourologists used a Likert questionnaire to blindly evaluate cystoscopic images from a patient with haematuria. The surgical team was asked about the overall performance of the WHES in 20 laparoscopic adrenalectomies using a unvalidated subjective survey. Results: There was no difference in image resolution between the two systems (5.82 vs 5.89 line pairs/mm). Without lens and respective light sources, there were better purple (Δ E = 21.48 vs 28.73), blue (Δ E = 34.88 vs 38.6) and red colour resolution (Δ E = 29.01 vs 35.45) for the WHES camera ( P < 0.05), but orange (Δ E = 43.45 vs 36.52) and yellow (Δ E = 52.7 vs 35.93) resolutions were better for the Storz HD camera ( P < 0.05). Comparing the WHES to a Storz laparoscopic system, the Storz system still had better resolution of orange and yellow, while the resolution of purple, blue, and red was similar for the two systems. The expert comments on resolution, brightness, and colour for cystoscopy were not statistically different, but the ergonomics score for the WHES was higher (3.7 vs 3.33, P = 0.038). The overall cost of the WHES was $23 000–25 000 compared with $45 000–50 000 for a Storz system. There were 100% general satisfaction for the WHES in the survey. Conclusion: We developed a new WHES that provides the same resolution images as a Storz laparoscopic system and acceptable colour resolution with the advantages of wireless connection, small volume, low cost, portability, and high‐speed wireless transmission.