Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2019 Nov;33(11):960-965.
doi: 10.1089/end.2019.0252. Epub 2019 Jul 17.

Endockscope: A Disruptive Endoscopic Technology

Affiliations

Endockscope: A Disruptive Endoscopic Technology

Sherry Lu et al. J Endourol. 2019 Nov.

Abstract

Objective: To assess optical performance and diagnostic capability of the Endockscope system (ES) vs the standard endoscopic system (SES) using four rigid/semi-rigid endoscopes. The ES combines a smartphone, lens system, and a rechargeable light-emitting diode (LED) light source to provide a low-cost alternative ($45) to the standard camera and high-powered light source ($45,000) used in endoscopic procedures. Materials and Methods: Video clips (<20 seconds) of standard rigid nephroscopy, semi-rigid ureteroscopy, rigid cystoscopy, and laparoscopy in two adult male cadavers were recorded using the ES combined with either the Apple iPhone X or Samsung Galaxy S9+ and also with the high-definition SES (Karl Storz). Sixteen urologists blinded to the camera modality assessed the image resolution, brightness, color, sharpness, and overall quality using a Likert-type scale; acceptability for diagnostic purposes was judged on a binary scale (yes/no). Results: For rigid cystoscopy, there was no statistical difference between both ES systems and the SES. For semi-rigid ureteroscopy the two ES systems performed equal to or better than the SES. For rigid nephroscopy, the ES plus Galaxy was comparable to the SES, except in brightness (p < 0.05), whereas the ES plus iPhone was inferior in various parameters. For laparoscopy, the ES plus Galaxy was inferior to the SES in brightness and overall quality (p < 0.05); the ES plus iPhone was inferior for all laparoscopic image parameters compared with the SES. For diagnostic purposes, the ES plus Galaxy was equivalent to the SES for all endoscopes; the ES plus iPhone was equivalent to the SES for cystoscopy, ureteroscopy, and nephroscopy. Conclusion: The ES plus the Apple iPhone X or Samsung Galaxy S9+ offers comparable imaging and provides diagnostic information equivalent to the standard system for rigid endoscopy of the kidney, ureter, and bladder; the Galaxy S9+ provides comparable imaging and diagnostic capabilities for evaluation of the abdomen.

Keywords: endockscope; mobile technology; nephrolithiasis; rigid endoscopy; smartphones.

PubMed Disclaimer

Comment in

LinkOut - more resources