Cost Analysis of Flexible Ureteroscope Repairs: Evaluation of 655 Procedures in a Community-Based Practice

Kramolowsky, Eugene V.; McDowell, Zachary J.; Moore, Blake W.; Booth, Brigette; Wood, Nada

doi:10.1089/end.2015.0642

Cited by 64 publications

(42 citation statements)

References 19 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The need for scope replacement, maintenance, and repair is one area that has been studied with regard to flexible ureteroscope usage. 19,20 Regarding failure of LithoVue, we experienced five occurrences of scope failure intraoperatively. The overall LithoVue failure rate of 4.4% was comparable with that of our reusable ureteroscopes (7.7%) and consistent with recent failure rates reported in the literature for reusable ureteroscopes.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A Prospective Case–Control Study Comparing LithoVue, a Single-Use, Flexible Disposable Ureteroscope, with Flexible, Reusable Fiber-Optic Ureteroscopes

Usawachintachit

Isaacson

Taguchi

et al. 2017

Journal of Endourology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective: LithoVueÔ is a novel, single-use, digital flexible ureteroscope that was released to the US market in January 2016. There are scant data regarding its performance in humans. Procedural outcomes comparing LithoVue with reusable ureteroscopes are presented in patients undergoing ureteroscopy for upper urinary tract pathology. Patients and Methods: Clinical outcomes between two groups of patients undergoing flexible ureteroscopy for upper urinary tract pathology were analyzed. The first group underwent surgery utilizing LithoVue, and the second group used reusable fiber-optic flexible ureteroscopes. Differences in procedural outcomes, operative times, and time spent in hospital were analyzed using two-tailed t-tests and chi-squared and Fisher's exact tests. Results: One hundred fifteen cases utilizing LithoVue and 65 cases utilizing reusable ureteroscopes were included in this study. Demographics, surgical indications, stone size, location, total stone burden, composition, procedural outcomes, and complications were comparable between groups. For all cases, LithoVue procedures lasted 54.1 -25.7 minutes compared with 64.5 -37.0 minutes for reusable scope procedures ( p < 0.05) and for stone removal cases, 57.3 -25.1 vs 70.3 -36.9 minutes, respectively ( p < 0.05). Scope failure occurred in 4.4% of LithoVue cases and 7.7% of reusable cases ( p = 0.27). Conclusions: LithoVue represents a feasible alternative to reusable ureteroscopes with a low rate of scope failure comparable with reusable ureteroscopes. Its use shortens procedure duration, a finding that warrants further investigation.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A Prospective Case–Control Study Comparing LithoVue, a Single-Use, Flexible Disposable Ureteroscope, with Flexible, Reusable Fiber-Optic Ureteroscopes

Usawachintachit

Isaacson

Taguchi

et al. 2017

Journal of Endourology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In a multi-center clinical trial, Knudsen et al found that flexible ureteroscope required fixing after its use in 5.3–18 patients (28–30). In addition, according to statistics from multiple articles, the main reasons for repair were the decreased capacity of active bending, the decreased image quality caused by fiber cuts and the sparking of laser in lens barrel (28–32). It is necessary to protect the flexible ureteroscope during operation.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Flexible ureteroscopic holmium laser lithotripsy with PolyScope for senile patients with renal calculi

Ding

Shi

et al. 2018

Exp Ther Med

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The present study reported the clinical experience of using a PolyScope with holmium laser lithotripter in managing renal calculi in senile patients. Between December 2013 and December 2016, 157 senile patients (69.1±6.1 years old) were treated with PolyScope holmium laser lithotripsy for renal calculi at Xin Hua Hospital (Shanghai, China). The mean stone digitized surface area was 154.2±57.7 mm2 (range, 55.8–478.3 mm2). A thorough medical history investigation, and laboratory and radiological examination were followed by proper preoperative management. The PolyScope was then passed into the renal cavities following the position of the ureteral access sheath, with laser energy maintained at 1.0–2.0 J, frequency 10–15 Hz. The demographical and operative information of senile patients were compared with that of the 332 non-senile patients operated at the same period time. The average operative time was 54.6±13.2 min (range, 37–124 min). No major complications, including ureteral perforation or sepsis were encountered. The single session stone-free rate (SFR) was 81.5% and the overall SFR was 89.2%, similar to that of the non-senile group. PolyScope combined with holmium laser lithotripter is safe and effective in managing renal calculi in senile patients compared with non-senile patients, with considerately high SFRs and low complication rates.

show abstract

“…Several studies have shown that single‐use fURS are becoming more economically viable, especially in lower‐volume centers and for cases with a higher risk of damage to reusable fURS . Several studies have shown that reusable fURS suffer damage requiring repair after 10–25 cases . Once a ureteroscope has been repaired, it is more likely to be damaged again, requiring further repair .…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Single use versus reusable digital flexible ureteroscopes: A prospective comparative study

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objectives To compare the performance and surgical outcomes of two different single‐use digital flexible ureteroscopes with a reusable video flexible ureteroscope. Methods Patients undergoing retrograde flexible ureteroscopy at Nepean Hospital, Sydney, Australia, were included in this study. Three different flexible ureteroscopes were used in this study: (i) single‐use digital LithoVue (Boston Scientific, Marlborough, MA, USA); (ii) single‐use digital PU3022A (Pusen, Zhuhai, China); and (iii) reusable digital URF‐V2 (Olympus, Tokyo, Japan). Visibility and maneuverability was rated on a 5‐point Likert scale by the operating surgeon. Operative outcomes and complications were collected and analyzed. Results A total of 150 patients were included in the present study. Of these, 141 patients had ureteroscopy for stone treatment, four for endoscopic combined intrarenal surgery and five for diagnostic/tumor treatment. There were 55 patients in the LithoVue group, 31 in the PU3022A group and 64 patients in the Olympus URF‐V2 group. The URF‐V2 group had higher visibility scores than both the single‐use scopes and higher maneuverability scores when compared with the PU3022A. The LithoVue had higher visibility and maneuverability scores when compared with the PU3022A. There were no differences in operative time, rates of relook flexible ureteroscopes, scope failure or complication rates observed. Conclusions Single‐use digital flexible ureteroscopes have visibility and maneuverability profiles approaching that of a reusable digital flexible ureteroscope. Single‐use flexible ureteroscopes achieve similar clinical outcomes to the more expensive reusable versions.

show abstract

Cost Analysis of Flexible Ureteroscope Repairs: Evaluation of 655 Procedures in a Community-Based Practice

Cited by 64 publications

References 19 publications

A Prospective Case–Control Study Comparing LithoVue, a Single-Use, Flexible Disposable Ureteroscope, with Flexible, Reusable Fiber-Optic Ureteroscopes

A Prospective Case–Control Study Comparing LithoVue, a Single-Use, Flexible Disposable Ureteroscope, with Flexible, Reusable Fiber-Optic Ureteroscopes

Flexible ureteroscopic holmium laser lithotripsy with PolyScope for senile patients with renal calculi

Single use versus reusable digital flexible ureteroscopes: A prospective comparative study

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About