Single-Use Ureteroscopes Are Associated with Decreased Risk of Urinary Tract Infection After Ureteroscopy for Urolithiasis Compared to Reusable Ureteroscopes

Unno, Rei; Hosier, Gregory; Hamouche, Fadl; Bayne, David; Stoller, Marshall L.; Chi, Thomas

doi:10.1089/end.2022.0480

Cited by 4 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 24 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…SU ureteroscopes serve to 39 In a recent retrospective study of 991 patients, Unno et al found the risk of postoperative urinary tract infection to be twofold less likely in patients who underwent URS with SU ureteroscope (6.5% vs. 11.9%, p = 0.018). 40 A similar study by Mourmouris et al…”

Section: Infection and Postoperative Complicationssupporting

confidence: 52%

“… 39 In a recent retrospective study of 991 patients, Unno et al found the risk of postoperative urinary tract infection to be twofold less likely in patients who underwent URS with SU ureteroscope (6.5% vs. 11.9%, p = 0.018). 40 A similar study by Mourmouris et al recorded lower rate of post–intervention sepsis in patients in SU group. 41 Although these results favour SU ureteroscopes, there remains a limited pool of data to be able to draw firm conclusions.…”

Section: Equipment Specificationsmentioning

confidence: 74%

“…Chang et al reported an outbreak where 15 patients were affected 39 . In a recent retrospective study of 991 patients, Unno et al found the risk of postoperative urinary tract infection to be twofold less likely in patients who underwent URS with SU ureteroscope (6.5% vs. 11.9%, p = 0.018) 40 . A similar study by Mourmouris et al recorded lower rate of post–intervention sepsis in patients in SU group 41 .…”

Section: Equipment Specificationsmentioning

confidence: 95%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Single use flexible ureteroscopes: Current status and future directions

et al. 2023

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

IntroductionSingle use ureteroscopes are a technological innovation that have become available in the past decade and gained increased popularity. To this end, there are now an increasing number of both benchside and clinical studies reporting outcomes associated with their use. Our aim was to deliver a narrative review in order to provide an overview of this new technology.MethodsA narrative review was performed to gain overview of the history of the technology's development, equipment specifications and to highlight potential advantages and disadvantages.ResultsFindings from preclinical studies highlight potenial advantages in terms of the design of single use ureteroscopes such as the lower weight and more recent modifications such as pressure control. However, concerns regarding plastic waste and environmental impact still remain unanswered. Clinical studies reveal them to have a non inferior status for outcomes such as stone free rate. However, the volume of evidence, especially in terms of randomised trials remains limited. From a cost perspective, study conclusions are still conflicting and centres are recommended to perform their own micro cost analyses.ConclusionsMost clinical outcomes for single use ureteroscopes currently match those achieved by reusable ureteroscopes but the data pool is still limited. Areas of continued debate include their environmental impact and cost efficiency.

show abstract

Section: Infection and Postoperative Complicationssupporting

confidence: 52%

Section: Equipment Specificationsmentioning

confidence: 74%

Section: Equipment Specificationsmentioning

confidence: 95%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Single use flexible ureteroscopes: Current status and future directions

et al. 2023

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…9 There is also a decreased risk of postoperative urinary tract infection in single-use f-URSs. 10 As they become more widespread, it is important to assess differences between various single-use f-URSs.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Using single‐use f‐URSs can have economic advantages, 8 and have comparative efficiency and safety of stone removal to reusable f‐URSs 9 . There is also a decreased risk of postoperative urinary tract infection in single‐use f‐URSs 10 . As they become more widespread, it is important to assess differences between various single‐use f‐URSs.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

In vitro comparison of simulated intrapelvic pressure in an artificial kidney model during retrograde intrarenal surgery among various single‐use ureteroscopes

Yamashita,

Tanioku,

Deguchi

et al. 2023

Int J of Urology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ObjectivesThis study compares intrapelvic pressure (IPP) during retrograde intrarenal surgery with various single‐use flexible ureteroscopes (f‐URS) in an artificial kidney model.MethodsWe created an artificial kidney model with a pressure sensor using a bladder evacuation device. The model was completely closed and the only backflow was on the side of the ureteroscope inside the ureteral access sheath (UAS). We tested five single‐use f‐URSs (LithoVue, Wiscope, PU3022A, PU3033A, and AXIS) with six different types of UAS (9.5/11.5–14/16 Fr). Using the automatic irrigation system, 30 s of irrigation was performed at various pressures (40–180 mmHg) and steady‐state IPP was recorded. IPP was compared between the five single‐use f‐URSs. IPP cutoff value was determined at 30 mmHg. The diameter of the endoscope tip and the curved and shaft parts were also measured and recorded.ResultsThe diameters of all parts were significantly different between single‐use f‐URSs. The maximum IPP tended to be higher in ureteroscopes with larger diameters of the proximal parts (curved part/shaft part). In LithoVue and Uscope PU3022A f‐URSs, the maximum IPP did not exceed 30 mmHg when UAS ≥12/14 Fr was used. In AXIS and Wiscope f‐URSs, it did not exceed the cutoff value when the UAS ≥11/13 Fr was used. In Uscope PU3033A f‐URS, it did not exceed 30 mmHg when the UAS ≥10/12 Fr was used.ConclusionsMaximum IPP tended to be higher in f‐URSs with larger diameters of the proximal part and the appropriate size of the UAS differed between various single‐use f‐URSs.

show abstract