Single-use flexible ureteropyeloscopy: a systematic review

Davis, Niall F.; Quinlan, Mark; Browne, Cliodhna; Bhatt, Nikita; Manecksha, Rustom P.; D’Arcy, Frank; Lawrentschuk, Nathan; Bolton, Damien

doi:10.1007/s00345-017-2131-4

Cited by 41 publications

(28 citation statements)

References 34 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…That study also found that the overall, mean procedure time was 10 min shorter in cases using the LithoVue . A recent systematic review found no difference in operative time, stone clearance or complications between disposable and reusable fURS …”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 81%

See 1 more Smart Citation

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

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 81%

“…3 A recent systematic review found no difference in operative time, stone clearance or complications between disposable and reusable fURS. 18 There are currently no in vivo studies comparing the performance of the different types of single-use fURS. To date, just two studies have compared single-use scopes with modern reusable video fURS.…”

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

show abstract

“…Polyscope TM performed adequately but was unable to provide the same SFR for lower pole stones than reusable scopes 9 . Newer scopes provide similar maneuverability and clinical efficacy to reusable scopes with equal low complication rates and are now part of the urology routine worldwide 6,10,13,17,18,20,[22][23][24]42 . The trial by Usawachintachit et al 10 could even have shown superiority with LithoVue TM compared to a reusable scope if a larger sample size was included in the study.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The authors reinforce the need for frequent audits of reprocessing practices and highlight that the clinical implications of residual contamination and viable microbes found on sterilized ureteroscopes are still unknown. In that sense, no study has ever shown an inferior rate of urinary tract infection after flexible ureteroscopy with the employment of single-use devices 6,7,10 . Therefore, the initial fear of cross infection with reusable scopes is not supported by existing literature and this is only a potential benefit from single-use scopes which has yet to be proven in clinical practice.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Single-use versus reusable flexible ureteroscopes: a comprehensive cost-analysis decision model

Marchini

Torricelli

Batagello

et al. 2018

Rev. Med. (São Paulo)

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose: The significant improvements in flexible ureterorenoscopes have made flexible ureteroscopy the main treatment modality to target upper urinary pathologies. The purpose of this study was to critically evaluate all literature concerning the cost-effectiveness of flexible ureteroscopy comparing single-use with reusable scopes. Methods: A systematic online literature review was performed in PubMed, Embase and Google Scholar databases. Two separate urologists (GSM and FCT) performed the online search and reviewed all papers considered suitable and relevant for this analysis. Because of the paucity of high quality publications, not only prospective assessments but also case control and case series studies were included in the final analysis. All factors potentially affecting surgical costs or clinical outcomes were considered in the analysis. Results: 741 studies with the previously elected terms were found. Of those, 18 were duplicated and 77 were not related to urology procedures and were excluded. Of the remaining 646 studies, 59 published between 2000 and 2018 were considered of relevance to the pre-defined queries and were selected for further analysis. Stone free and complication rates were similar between single-use and reusable scopes. In special, urinary tract infection rate following flexible ureteroscopy is not inferior if a single-use device is used instead of a reusable scope. Operative time was in average 20% shorter if a digital scope was used, single-use or not. There is a suggestion that the learning curve is shorter with single-use devices but this is not consistent in the literature. Surgeon expertise impacts the longevity of the flexible scope. Reusable digital scopes seem to last longer than optic ones, though scope longevity is very variable worldwide. New scopes usually last three to four times more than refurbished ones and single-use ureterorenoscopes have good resilience throughout long cases. Both sterilization method and cleaning process impact scope longevity, the best results being achieved with Cidex and a dedicated nurse to take care of the sterilization process. The main factors that negatively impact device longevity regarding patient and disease are lower pole pathologies, large stone burden and non-use of a ureteral access sheath. Conclusions: The cost-effectiveness of a flexible ureteroscopy program is dependent of several aspects that must be considered when deciding whether to choose between a single-use and a reusable ureterorenoscope. Disposable devices are already a reality and will progressively become the standard as manufacturing price falls significantly.

show abstract

Safety and Care of Ureteroscopic Instruments

2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Single-use flexible ureteropyeloscopy: a systematic review

Abstract: Single-use FURS demonstrates comparable efficacy with reusable FURS in treating renal calculi. Further studies on clinical efficacy and cost are needed to determine whether single-use FURS will reliably replace its reusable counterpart.

Cited by 41 publications

References 34 publications

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

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

Single-use versus reusable flexible ureteroscopes: a comprehensive cost-analysis decision model

Safety and Care of Ureteroscopic Instruments

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About