Comparison of fluorescence intensity of protoporphyrin IX as observed on the screen of different cystoscopic systems

IF 3.1 3区医学 Q2 ONCOLOGY Photodiagnosis and Photodynamic Therapy Pub Date : 2025-02-01 DOI:10.1016/j.pdpdt.2024.104425

Hideo Fukuhara , Takahiro Nishimura , Yu Shimojo , Keiji Inoue

{"title":"Comparison of fluorescence intensity of protoporphyrin IX as observed on the screen of different cystoscopic systems","authors":"Hideo Fukuhara , Takahiro Nishimura , Yu Shimojo , Keiji Inoue","doi":"10.1016/j.pdpdt.2024.104425","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Background</h3><div>Photodynamic diagnosis-assisted transurethral resection of bladder tumor (PDD-TURBT) is an important and useful intervention used for removing non-invasive bladder cancer (NMIBC). Several PDD devices can be used in clinical practice, but few reports have compared them.In this study, we examined the differences in detected fluorescence intensity for each PDD device.</div></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><div>The PDD device was used from OLYMPUS, Richard Wolf, and Karl Storz. Light power and illuminance from endoscope were measured. For each PDD device, fluorescence intensity was measured at 3 cm and 8 cm distance from the protoporphyrin IX (PpIX) phantom to the cystoscope.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>The variation of excitation light power with observation distance were 35.0 %, 27.0 %, and 28.2 % for OLYMPUS, Richard Wolf, and Karl Storz, respectively. The variation of fluorescence intensity with observation distance were 132.8 %, 120.5 %, and 49.8 % for OLYMPUS, Richard Wolf, and Karl Storz, respectively.</div></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><div>PDD devices used in clinical practice show both some performance differences between the PDD systems themselves, and also differences in observed fluorescence intensity.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":20141,"journal":{"name":"Photodiagnosis and Photodynamic Therapy","volume":"51 ","pages":"Article 104425"},"PeriodicalIF":3.1000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Photodiagnosis and Photodynamic Therapy","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1572100024004617","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ONCOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background

Photodynamic diagnosis-assisted transurethral resection of bladder tumor (PDD-TURBT) is an important and useful intervention used for removing non-invasive bladder cancer (NMIBC). Several PDD devices can be used in clinical practice, but few reports have compared them.In this study, we examined the differences in detected fluorescence intensity for each PDD device.

Methods

The PDD device was used from OLYMPUS, Richard Wolf, and Karl Storz. Light power and illuminance from endoscope were measured. For each PDD device, fluorescence intensity was measured at 3 cm and 8 cm distance from the protoporphyrin IX (PpIX) phantom to the cystoscope.

Results

The variation of excitation light power with observation distance were 35.0 %, 27.0 %, and 28.2 % for OLYMPUS, Richard Wolf, and Karl Storz, respectively. The variation of fluorescence intensity with observation distance were 132.8 %, 120.5 %, and 49.8 % for OLYMPUS, Richard Wolf, and Karl Storz, respectively.

Conclusions

PDD devices used in clinical practice show both some performance differences between the PDD systems themselves, and also differences in observed fluorescence intensity.

查看原文

微信好友朋友圈 QQ好友复制链接

本刊更多论文

不同膀胱镜系统萤幕上原卟啉IX荧光强度的比较。

背景：光动力诊断辅助经尿道膀胱肿瘤切除术（PDD-TURBT）是治疗非侵袭性膀胱癌（NMIBC）必不可少的有效干预手段。几种PDD装置可用于临床实践，但很少有报道对它们进行比较。在这项研究中，我们检查了每个PDD装置检测到的荧光强度的差异。方法：PDD装置采用OLYMPUS、Richard Wolf和Karl Storz公司。测量内窥镜的光功率和照度。对于每个PDD装置，在从原卟啉IX （PpIX）幻体到膀胱镜的3 cm和8 cm距离处测量荧光强度。结果：OLYMPUS、Richard Wolf和Karl Storz的激发光功率随观察距离的变化分别为35.0%、27.0%和28.2%。OLYMPUS、Richard Wolf和Karl Storz的荧光强度随观察距离的变化分别为132.8%、120.5%和49.8%。结论：临床使用的PDD装置在PDD系统本身的性能和观察到的荧光强度上都存在差异。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

求助全文

约1分钟内获得全文去求助

来源期刊

Photodiagnosis and Photodynamic Therapy ONCOLOGY-

CiteScore

5.80

自引率

24.20%

发文量

509

审稿时长

50 days

期刊介绍： Photodiagnosis and Photodynamic Therapy is an international journal for the dissemination of scientific knowledge and clinical developments of Photodiagnosis and Photodynamic Therapy in all medical specialties. The journal publishes original articles, review articles, case presentations, "how-to-do-it" articles, Letters to the Editor, short communications and relevant images with short descriptions. All submitted material is subject to a strict peer-review process.