Retrograde intrarenal surgery using the single – use flexible ureteroscope Uscope 3022 (PUSEN TM): evaluation of clinical results

Salvadó, José A.; Olivares, Ruben; Cabello, José M.; Cabello, Renato; Moreno, Sergio; Pfeifer, Jessica; Roman, Cristobal; Velasco, Alfredo

doi:10.5173/ceju.2018.1653

Cited by 14 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 26 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…For intrarenal surgeries, the capacity of a flexible ureteroscope to deflect is essential since it is required for access and navigation of the renal pelvis, calyces, and diverticula [ 14 ]. Moreover, it is of the utmost importance while attempting treatment of lower pole calculi, as the lower pole of the kidney is more difficult to approach.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Single-use versus conventional reusable flexible ureteroscopes – an evaluation of the functional parameters

et al. 2023

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The purpose of single-use flexible ureteroscopes (su-fURS) was to overcome the limitations of conventional reusable ureteroscopes in terms of maneuverability and maintenance. We aimed to perform a systematic literature review on available su-fURS performance versus conventional reusable fURS focusing on clinical data. A systematic research using Pubmed was performed evaluating single-use fURS and reusable fURS in urinary tract stone disease, including prospective assessments and case series. This review aimed to provide an overview of single-use and disposable flexible ureteroscopes and to examine and compare their capabilities (deflection, irrigation, optical properties). We included 11 studies, where the single-use fURS were compared to the reusable fURS. The studies with single-use ureteroscopes included data on LithoVue (Boston Scientific), The Uscope UE3022 (Pusen, Zhuhai, China), NeoFlex-Flexible, (Neoscope Inc San Jose, CA), 23 YC-FR-A (Shaogang). For reusable ureteroscopes, data were included on three models, two digital (Karl Storz Flex-XC and Olympus URF-Vo) and one fiber optic (Wolf-Cobra). There were no significant differences in stone-free rate, procedure duration, or functional capabilities between single-use fURS and reusable fURS. The systematic literature review analyzed operative time, functional capabilities, stone-free rates, and postoperative complications of the ureteroscopes, and a special chapter about renal abnormalities to emphasize that they are a good choice having a high proportion of stone-free rates and few risks, particularly in treating difficult-to-access calculi. Single-use fURS demonstrate a comparable efficacy with reusable fURS in resolving renal lithiasis. Further studies on clinical efficacy are needed to determine whether single-use fURS will reliably replace its reusable counterpart.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Single-use versus conventional reusable flexible ureteroscopes – an evaluation of the functional parameters

et al. 2023

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…There is no consensus in the operative time between single-use FURS and reusable FURS. Although several studies have found that the single-use FURS have the advantage of shorter surgical time (22)(23)(24), a series of prospective comparative research between single-use FURS and reusable FURS have found no significant difference in mean operative time between these two surgical devices (7,17,18,25). As such, a prospective study with larger sample size is needed to confirm the performance of single-use and reusable FURS in terms of operative time.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Single-Use vs. Reusable Digital Flexible Ureteroscope to Treat Upper Urinary Calculi: A Propensity-Score Matching Analysis

et al. 2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective: The purpose of this research was to compare the treatment outcomes and costs of a single-use and reusable digital flexible ureteroscope for upper urinary calculi.Methods: Four hundred forty patients with reusable digital flexible ureteroscope and 151 patients with single-use flexible digital ureteroscope were included in this study. Through exclusion and inclusion criteria and 1:1 propensity-score matching analysis based on baseline characteristics, ultimately, 238 patients (119:119) were compared in terms of treatment outcomes. The cost analysis was based on the costs of purchase, repair, and reprocessing divided by the number of all procedures in each group (450 procedures with reusable digital flexible ureteroscope and 160 procedures with single-use digital flexible ureteroscope).Results: There was no statistical significance in mean operation time (P = 0.666). The single-use digital flexible ureteroscope group has a shorter mean length of hospital stay than the reusable digital flexible ureteroscope group (P = 0.026). And the two groups have a similar incidence of postoperative complications (P = 0.678). No significant difference was observed in the final stone-free rate (P = 0.599) and the probability of secondary lithotripsy (P = 0.811) between the two groups. After 275 procedures, the total costs of a single-use flexible ureteroscope would exceed the reusable flexible ureteroscope.Conclusion: Our data demonstrated that the single-use digital flexible ureteroscope is an alternative to reusable digital flexible ureteroscopy in terms of surgical efficacy and safety for upper urinary calculi. In terms of the economics of the two types of equipment, institutions should consider their financial situation, the number of FURS procedures, the volume of the patient's calculus, surgeon experience, and local dealerships' annual maintenance contract when making the choice.

show abstract

“…The manipulation and lithotripsy effect of exible ureteroscopy are generally closely related to the clarity of ureteroscopy imaging, the bendability of head end, the left-right direction adjustability, the size, hardness and location of stones. With the popularization of electronic exible ureteroscope and the application of disposable electronic exible ureteroscope [14][15][16], the clarity of surgical imaging is greatly improved and the learning curve is further shortened, which increases the operation e ciency is better.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The study of Double-J stent free mode of flexible ureteroscopy and laser lithotripsy: A single center experience

Han

Zhu

et al. 2022

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose To evaluate the effectiveness and safety of flexible ureteroscopy in the treatment of kidney and upper ureteral calculi under the Double-J stent free mode. Methods We retrospectively collected the data of patients who underwent flexible ureteroscopy and laser lithotripsy from February 2018 to September 2021 in our hospital. Cases were divided into three groups according to used of the Double-J stent pre-operation and post-operation, namely, the Postoperative Double-J stent free (Post-F) group with pre-indwelling Double-J stent before operation and non-indwelling Double-J stent after operation, the Preoperative Double-J stent free (Pre-F) group with the Double-J stent not preset before operation and retained after operation, and the Routine group with the Double J stents placed in the ureter before and after operation. The data of all patients, including demographic and stone characteristics, perioperative data, postoperative outcomes and complications, were recorded, evaluated and compared. Results 554 patients as per prescribed research criteria were included with 101 cases in the Post-F group, 154 cases in the Pre-F group and 299 cases in the Routine group. There was no significant difference in baseline characteristics among the three groups, such as age, body mass index, the cumulative calculi maximum length diameter (CMD), average CT value of stones (p > 0.05). The average operation time among the three groups was also similar which demonstrated no statistical difference. The incidence of grade 0–1 ureteral injury in the Post-F group was higher than the other two groups, and the difference was statistically significant (p < 0.01). There was no significant difference in the operation related complications such as bleeding, renal subcapsular effusion, urosepsis, and ureteral stricture. During the follow-up, the data showed there was a certain proportion of Double-J stent associated complications between the Pre-F group and the Routine group, while no risk of these complications were identified in the Post-F group. At the end of time intervals of one month, three months and six months after operation, the stone clearance rates of the three groups were (88.1% vs 87.7% vs89.6%), (91.5% vs 91.9% vs 93.8%), (93.1% vs 93.0% vs 94.9%) respectively, and the differences did not reach statistical significance. (p > 0.05). Conclusion It was a safe, feasible and effective management method to treat renal and upper ureteral calculi by flexible ureteroscopy using Double-J stent free mode. This model could avoid the stent associated complications after operation and is suggested to be widely used in clinic.

show abstract

Retrograde intrarenal surgery using the single – use flexible ureteroscope Uscope 3022 (PUSEN TM): evaluation of clinical results

Cited by 14 publications

References 26 publications

Single-use versus conventional reusable flexible ureteroscopes – an evaluation of the functional parameters

Single-use versus conventional reusable flexible ureteroscopes – an evaluation of the functional parameters

Single-Use vs. Reusable Digital Flexible Ureteroscope to Treat Upper Urinary Calculi: A Propensity-Score Matching Analysis

The study of Double-J stent free mode of flexible ureteroscopy and laser lithotripsy: A single center experience

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About