Efficiency of retrograde intrarenal surgery in lower pole stones: disposable flexible ureterorenoscope or reusable flexible ureterorenoscope?

Sustainable practices in hospital and operating theaters

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

This review aims to provide an update on the results of studies published in the last two years involving the development of sustainable practices in hospital and operating theaters (OT).

RECENT FINDINGS

Recently, many studies evaluated various initiatives to better understand the environmental impact of the OT but also to minimize its environmental impact. Many trials evidenced the positive impact of the instrument's reuse using an appropriate reprocessing procedure. Better waste segregation is associated with a reduction of produced waste and contributes to a significant reduction in CO 2 equivalent emissions. Regarding anaesthetic gas, Desflurane is known to have the worst environmental impact and the majority of the study evidenced that its reduction permits to drastically reduce greenhouse gas emission of the OT.

SUMMARY

Greening the OT necessitates climate-smart actions such as waste reduction, the improvement of reusable instruments, recycling of our waste and better anaesthetic gas management. Within the last two years, many efforts have been made to reduce and better segregate waste produced in the OT and also to better understand the environmental impact of disposable and reusable devices.

Clinical comparative study of single-use and reusable digital flexible ureteroscopy for the treatment of lower pole stones: a retrospective case-controlled study

OBJECTIVES

To compare the clinical efficacy and safety of single-use and reusable digital flexible ureteroscopy for the treatment of lower pole stones.

METHODS

We enrolled 135 patients underwent reusable flexible ureteroscopy (FURS) and 78 patients underwent single-use digital FURS. Demographic, clinical variables, anatomical parameters of the lower calyx and perioperative indicators were compared in the two groups.

RESULTS

Thirty-six patients in the infundibuloureter angle (IPA) < 45° subgroup had a mini-percutaneous nephrolithotomy (mini-PCNL), including 25 patients in the reusable FURS group and 11 patients in the single-use FURS group. The demographic and clinical variables in the two FURS groups were comparable. There was no statistical difference in the success rate of stone searching (P > 0.05). In terms of the success rate of lithotripsy, there was also no statistical difference in the IPA ≥ 45° subgroup (P > 0.05), whereas single-use FURS was superior in the IPA < 45° subgroup (χ2 = 6.513, P = 0.011). The length of the working fiber in the reusable FURS and single-use FURS groups was 3.20 ± 0.68 mm and 1.75 ± 0.47 mm, respectively (t = 18.297, P < 0.05). The use of a stone basket in the reusable FURS (31/135, 23.0%) was significantly higher than that in the single-use FURS (8/78, 10.3%) (χ2 = 5.336, P = 0.021). Compared with the reusable FURS group, the single-use FURS group had shorter operation times (P < 0.05) and higher stone-free rate (SFR) (χ2 = 4.230, P = 0.040). There was no statistical difference in the intraoperative transfer of mini-PCNL and postoperative complications between the two groups (P > 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

Single-use and reusable FURS are alternative methods for removal of lower pole stones (i.e., 2 cm or less). Single-use FURS has a high success rate of lithotripsy, shorter operation time, and high stone-free rate.

Recent advances in the treatment of renal stones using flexible ureteroscopys

Upper urinary tract stones are a common urological disease that can be treated by flexible ureteroscopy (FURS) through the natural urinary tract, in addition to extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy and percutaneous nephrolithotomy. The advantages of FURS are less trauma, faster recovery, and fewer complications, while its disadvantages include poor results of lithotripsy and stone extraction when dealing with larger stones, and prolonged operation time. Over the last two decades, the emergence of new technologies such as FURS combined with negative pressure suction, robot-assisted FURS, and artificially intelligent FURS, coupled with improvements in laser technology (the use of thulium fiber lasers and the invention of single-use flexible ureteroscopes (su-fURS) suitable for primary level application, have significantly increased the global adoption of FURS. This surge in usage holds a promising future in clinical application, benefiting a growing number of patients with renal calculi. Accompanied by changes in technical concepts and therapeutic modalities, the scope of indications for FURS is broadening, positioning it as a potential primary choice for urolithiasis treatment in the future. This review outlines the progress in employing FURS for the treatment of renal calculi in order to generate insights for further research.

Retrospective study of single-use digital flexible ureteroscopic lithotripsy versus miniaturized percutaneous nephrolithotomy for 1.5-2.5cm lower pole renal stones

PURPOSE

Retrospective analysis was performed on the clinical information of patients with 1.5-2.5 cm lower pole renal stones treated by single-use digital flexible ureteroscopic lithotripsy (fURS) and miniaturized percutaneous nephrolithotomy (MPCNL) in affiliated hospital of the Nantong University from January 2020 to December 2022. To compare the safety and efficacy of single-use fURS and MPCNL in the treatment from 1.5cm to 2.5cm lower pole renal stones.

METHODS

Clinical information of 141 patients were collected and divided into single-use fURS group and MPCNL group according to their treatment methods, including 83 patients in the single-use fURS group and 58 patients in the MPCNL group. Baseline data, data on the clinical characteristics of stones, laboratory examination data, operation time, and postoperative data of the two groups were collected. Statistical analysis was made on the collected data to analyze the differences and causes between the two groups of patients.

RESULTS

There was no significant difference in the baseline data and preoperative clinical features of 141 patients between the two groups (P > 0.05). In comparison of postoperative serum indexes, the drop values of hemoglobin and creatinine in single-use fURS group were lower than those in MPCNL group, and the difference was statistically significant (P < 0.05). The stone free rate was higher in the MPCNL group than in the single-use fURS group on the first day after surgery. At the 1st month after surgery, the two groups were similar. At 3rd month after surgery, the single-use fURS group was slightly higher than the MPCNL group, with no statistical significance (P > 0.05). The total complication rate in single-use fURS group was slightly lower than that in MPCNL group, but there was no statistical significance (P > 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

Single-use fURS has similar safety and efficacy to MPCNL in the treatment of 1.5-2.5cm lower pole renal stones. Single-use fURS may be a new option for the treatment of these stones.

Perspectives on technology: to use or to reuse, that is the endoscopic question-a systematic review of single-use endoscopes

OBJECTIVE

To compare clinical outcomes of single-use endoscopes with those of reusable endoscopes to better define their role within urology.

METHODS

A systematic search of electronic databases was performed. All studies comparing the clinical outcomes of participants undergoing urological procedures with single-use endoscopes to those of participants treated with reusable endoscopes were included. Results are reported in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) 2020 statement.

RESULTS

Twenty-one studies in 3943 participants were identified. Six different single-use flexible ureteroscopes and two different single-use flexible cystoscopes were assessed. There were no differences in mean postoperative infection rates (4.0% vs 4.4%; P = 0.87) or overall complication rates (11.5% vs 11.9%; P = 0.88) between single-use and reusable endoscopes. For patients undergoing flexible ureteroscopy there were no differences in operating time (mean difference -0.05 min; P = 0.96), length of hospital stay (LOS; mean difference 0.06 days; P = 0.18) or stone-free rate (SFR; 74% vs 74.3%; P = 0.54) between the single-use and reusable flexible ureteroscope groups.

CONCLUSION

This study is the largest to compare the clinical outcomes of single-use endoscopes to those of reusable endoscopes within urology, and demonstrated no difference in LOS, complication rate or SFR, with a shorter operating time associated with single-use flexible cystoscope use. It also highlights that the cost efficiency and environmental impact of single-use endoscopes is largely dependent on the caseload and reprocessing facilities available within a given institution. Urologists can therefore feel confident that whether they choose to 'use' or to 'reuse' based on the financial and environmental implications, they can do so without negatively impacting patient outcomes.

Flexible ureteroscopy for lower pole calculus: is it still a challenge?

PURPOSE

Flexible ureteroscopy (fURS) is steadily gaining popularity in the management of renal calculi, including those located in the lower pole (LP). Due to difficulty in accessing to the LP of kidney in minority of cases with fURS and reports of lower stone-free rate (SFR), it is still considered as a challenge in selected cases. The purpose of the review was to analyze the various aspects of fURS for LP stones.

METHODS

An extensive review of the recent literature was done including different factors such as anatomy, preoperative stenting, stone size, flexible scopes, types of lasers, laser fibers, suction, relocation, stone-free rates, and complications.

RESULTS

The significance of various lower pole anatomical measurements remain a subject of debate and requires standardization. Recent improvements in fURS such as single-use digital scopes with better vision and flexibility, high power laser, thulium fiber laser, smaller laser fiber, and accessories have significantly contributed to make flexible ureteroscopy  more effective and safer in the management of LP stone. The utilization of thulium fiber lasers in conjunction with various suction devices is being recognized and can significantly improve SFR.

CONCLUSIONS

With the significant advancement of various aspects of fURS, this treatment modality has shown remarkable efficacy and gaining widespread acceptance in management of LP kidney stones. These developments have made the fURS of LP stones less challenging.

Single-use flexible ureteroscope provides an alternative treatment for upper urinary calculi: A systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of single-use flexible ureteroscope and reusable flexible ureteroscope for upper urinary calculi.

METHODS

We conducted a meta-analysis that had a comprehensive search in PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, and WanFang databases from 2000/01/01 to 2023/06/01 for available randomized controlled trials. "Ureteroscopes," "Flexible Ureteroscope," "Single-use," and "Upper Urinary Calculi" were used as the major keywords for the search. Review Manager 5.0 and STATA 12.0 were used for calculation and statistical analysis.

RESULTS

A total of 9 randomized controlled trials comprising 1293 participants were included in our meta-analysis. Single use-FURS had better results in stone-free rate (relative risk: 1.08, 95% confidence interval: [1.02, 1.15], P = .02) and postoperative infection (relative risk: 0.41, 95% confidence interval: [0.23, 0.72], P = .002). Operative time, hemoglobin decline, postoperative serum creatinine, postoperative hospital stay, and overall complication after surgery showed no significant differences between the 2 procedures (P > .05).

CONCLUSION

Single-use flexible ureteroscope provides a valuable alternative to reusable flexible ureteroscope in upper urinary calculi with its better visual field performance and manipulation, opening a new technological revolution for kidney stone treatment.

Comparison of Surgical Outcomes between Single-Use and Reusable Flexible Ureteroscopes for Renal Stone Management: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Background and Objectives: Disposable flexible ureteroscopes have been widely used because of their cost-effectiveness and higher sterility potential compared with reusable flexible ureteroscopes. This study aimed to compare the surgical outcomes and complication rates in patients who undergo reusable or disposable flexible ureteroscopic stone surgeries (fURS) for urinary stone disease. Materials and Methods: A systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted under the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guideline. This systematic review was registered with PROSPERO (CRD42022331291). Clinical trials comparing reusable and disposable fURS for stone disease were found from PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, and the Web of Science up to March 2022. Participants were patients with upper urinary tract stones; the interventions were reusable or disposable fURS. Outcomes, including stone-free rate, operation time, length of hospital stay, and complication rate, were compared for analysis. Results: Overall, 111 studies were identified, but after removing duplicate studies, 75 studies remained. Thirty-two of these studies were excluded. Of the 43 screened studies, 11 met the eligibility criteria. There was no difference in the stone-free rate (SFR) between disposable and reusable fURS (p = 0.14; OR = 1.36; 95% CI, 0.9 to 2.04). For operation time, no difference was identified between reusable and disposable fURS groups (p = 0.12; MD = -5.31; 95% CI, -12.08 to 1.46). For hospital stay, there was also no difference between the two groups (p = 0.61; MD = -0.03; 95% CI, -0.17 to 0.10). There was no significant difference in complication rate between the two groups (p = 0.85; OR = 0.95; 95% CI, 0.56 to 1.61). Conclusions: There were no differences in the SFR, operation time, length of hospital stay, and complication rate between reusable and disposable fURS. Disposable fURS may be a comparable alternative to reusable fURS.

Retrograde intrarenal surgery versus percutaneous nephrolithotomy for treatment of renal pelvic stone more than 2 centimeters: a prospective randomized controlled trial

This study aimed at investigating the efficacy and safety of retrograde intrarenal surgery (RIRS) in treatment of renal pelvic stone larger than 2 cm against the percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL). Between March 2018 and December 2020, 121 patients were randomized to undergo PCNL (60 patients), or RIRS (61 patients). Both groups were compared in terms of operative time, intraoperative complications. Postoperative complications were assessed based on Clavien-Dindo grading system. Stone-free rates were evaluated by CT scan 6 weeks after surgery. No significant difference were observed between both groups in perioperative criteria. The main operative time was slightly longer in PCNL group (105 vs 95 min, p = 0.49). Stone clearance was higher in PCNL, yet the difference was not significant. (53 patients in PCNL group had either complete clearance or residual fragments < 4 mm, compared to 49 in RIRS group (p = 0.22). Blood transfusion rate was 8.3% in PCNL compared to 1.6% in RIRS group, with a trend towards significance (p = 0.08). Post-operative fever was higher in RIRS, yet it fell just short of statistical significance (13.1% vs 5.0%, p = 0.12). Compared to PCNL, RIRS displayed acceptable efficacy with less risk of bleeding requiring transfusion. It can be applied to patients with large renal pelvic stone as an alternative to PCNL.