Introduction: The success of upper urinary tract endoscopy on one hand and the high cost of purchase and maintenance of the scopes on the other hand have driven the development of disposable digital flexible ureterorenoscopy (fURS). Materials and Methods:We performed an ex vivo comparison of 2 disposable digital fURS from different companies with a state-of-the-art reusable endoscope from another well-established scope manufacturer. The scopes were tested comparing parameters such as instrument handling, irrigation flow, image quality, and deflection. For the disposable scopes, the latter 2 were evaluated both, before and after vigorous stress testing. Results: Expectedly, the most consistent finding among the 3 instruments was the marked decrease on irrigation flow following insertion of a working element, most notably a guidewire. Depth perception and ergonomic handling were comparable in all 3 instruments.Poststress testing revealed a significant loss of upward deflection in both disposable instruments, more so when an auxiliary instrument is inserted into the working channel. However, this did not appear to be the case in downward deflection. Conclusions: To our knowledge, this is the first study that used a vigorous stress testing protocol comparing disposable and reusable fURS. The newer generation disposable scope fared better than the older one. Results are encouraging and indicate that improvements are ongoing and progressing, bringing the quality of disposable scopes to the level that we are used to from our reusable high performance scopes while at the same time avoiding costly damage repairs. Continuous research and evidence-based interpretation of results in the absence of commercial bias are paramount to ensure this ongoing development.

Basic urolithiasis research into the causes for stone formation has been stagnating for a long time. Emergence of effective stone treatment modalities has shifted the public and clinicians' focus away from basic research towards symptomatic treatment solutions. This has occurred in spite of urolithiasis being a highly recurrent disease with an enormous socio-economic impact warranting a prophylactic and recurrence-preventing approach. An integrated, multidisciplinary translational platform has been developed in the form of urolithiasis meetings bringing together urologists, radiologists, nephrologists, basic scientists, dieticians and other stake holders interested in stone disease, for an exchange of knowledge, mutual education and understanding, and professional networking. Traditionally, such combined meetings are split into sessions addressing the specific interests of clinicians and scientists. At the recent Experts in Stone Disease Symposium we devised and implemented a program which mixed clinical and basic science activities throughout. We interviewed delegates between sessions regarding their acceptance of this novel concept using a standardized questionnaire. Sessions were well-attended, alleviating our initial anxiety that delegates would not appreciate a "no-choice" program. Of the 74 delegates who were interviewed, 60 (81%) were urologists, and 14 (19%) were non-urologists such as nephrologists, dieticians, and students. This is representative of the overall distribution of delegates at the conference. 71% felt that a closer co-operation and understanding between clinicians and scientists will ultimately benefit both groups, as well as patients; 95% found the mixed session approach beneficial, with half appreciating it as very good and innovative; 94% believed that they had derived useful learnings from the "other side"; 94% found that such mixed sessions are useful for their future work and understanding of the urolithiasis field as a whole; 94% agreed that mixed meetings of this type are useful in enhancing networking between the different stake holders in urolithiasis treatment and research. Finally, 85% would like to visit future mixed session meetings, and 89% would encourage their juniors to attend, too. Not only was a platform created to facilitate multidisciplinary exchange and networking, but delegates from several different backgrounds were encouraged to attend presentations in disciplines other than their own. The results of our survey confirm an overwhelmingly positive acceptance of this integrated multidisciplinary concept for stone meetings. As such, we are encouraged to continue with this concept in future conferences.