There are also varying types of magnification for the scopes. In my past 6 1/2 years of cysto checks, I asked and learned the fact that some places had less magnification than others and not all had camera's attached to the scope for my viewing on a monitor. In some cases, the facility had camera's but did not offer it for cysto but only for TURB for other medical personnel to see. I left that practice quickly as I want to see what they are seeing and know how much magnification I am seeing. This last monitoring cysto I had magnified my 6 millimeter papillary growth to giant size until the urologist showed me an overall view of it which incorporated the interior bladder and ureter orifice so I could realize the proportions of the growth. For those of you who did not read my post, I am doing watchful waiting on a low grade papillary recurrence rather than having surgery/TURB immediately. It does rattle me a bit to see that huge magnification that is called low grade cancer recurrence but I read over the long term cases like mine studied and become reassured again that I am doing the right thing for me at this time.
interestingly my urology department claim that because they do so many bladder checks they become very adept with the flexi and as they have proved again and again with me - no pain, virtually no after effects and an ability to see detail down to blemish level.
A rigid does have greater magnification on screen but the risks and discomfort are felt not to justify their use for checks. Clearly if the problem is large enough to be a problem it will be visible to an experienced specialist handler - there being a risk with the rigid it can also besides pain can actually damage.
IF the problem is so miniscule that a flexi in expert hands can't detect it then it is unlikely to be either 'gross' or seriously threatenning.
I'll go with more frequent checks, less risk and experience.
I've only had one check since my diagnosis last year and it was with a rigid scope.. i have to say i was so fascinated watching what was on the screen that I didn't feel that much - he used some good numbing gel I guess! But yes, it did hurt to pee for a week afterwards... :-[
The first two cystos I had with the rigid scope. The procedure was painful and it hurt to pee for about two weeks after! Why is the flexible scope not as good. I watched t he last procedure on the t.v. and it seems like you could see my bladder rather clearly. I could not imagine them missing a tumor. It also seems like the doctor could see the bladder neck better because the scope could turn around. Does a rigid scope do that? The urologist-oncologist who I sa could not believe that I had had the procedure done with a rigid scope in the office with out sedation!
I'm puzzled - why would ANYONE use a rigid for a check?
All you need is a lensed fibre optic a thin tube for fluid input and a light - all easy with a flexi, leaving room for various minor tools also.
The rigid is surely ONLY for a TURBT or TURP or more complex esspecially when back on itself, near the neck of the bladder or on the Prostate.
What is the value of a Rigid for a check relative to the two great downsides - firstly inflicting pain secondly increasing risk of damage. Is it that in some US cases the work is done by Doctors in Practice rather than specialist urology units? Do they have less choice of 'kit' and/or less experience?
ALL of my urological procedures have been conducted in the urology unit of my local hospital and over 7 years largely by the same team.