The effectiveness of sterilization for flexible ureteroscopes: A real-world study

Urinary Tract Infection Predictors in Patients Undergoing Retrograde IntraRenal Surgery for Renal Stones: Does the Instrument Make the Difference?

Background: Retrograde intrarenal surgery (RIRS) using flexible ureterorenoscopes is a cornerstone approach for renal stone removal, yet it carries a significant risk of postoperative urinary tract infection (UTI). With the emergence of single-use ureterorenoscopes, there is growing interest in their potential to mitigate this risk. This study aimed to compare the postoperative infection rates between single-use and multi-use ureterorenoscopes in RIRS procedures and to identify predictors of postoperative UTI. Methods: Data were collected from 112 consecutive patients who underwent RIRS for renal stones between March 2022 and September 2023. Peri-operative variables including age, gender, body mass index (BMI), stone size, stone location, type of ureterorenoscope, Hounsfield Units (HU), pre-operative hydronephrosis, laboratory analysis, and operative time were evaluated. Univariate and multivariate logistic regression analyses were performed to assess the predictors of postoperative UTI. Results: Of the cohort, 77 surgeries (68.7%) utilized multi-use ureterorenoscopes, while 35 (31.3%) utilized single-use devices. Stone diameter, number of stones, type of ureterorenoscope, and operative time were significant predictors of postoperative UTI in the univariate analysis. Multivariable logistic regression showed that operative time (OR, 1.3; 95% CI, 0.55-0.99; p = 0.03) and type of ureterorenoscope (multi-use vs. single-use) (OR, 1.14; 95% CI, 1.08-1.2; p < 0.001) were independent predictors of postoperative UTI. Conclusions: In conclusion, this study highlights that multi-use ureterorenoscopes and prolonged operative time are associated with an increased risk of postoperative UTI in RIRS procedures. Careful pre-operative evaluation and meticulous patient selection are essential to minimize the occurrence of postoperative UTIs and optimize patient outcomes in RIRS for renal stones.

Ureteral stent encrustation in an HIV patient treated with disposable flexible ureteroscope: a case report

Human immunodeficiency virus prevalence was increasing worldwide. Medication-associated urinary calculi are very commonly caused by medications used to treat HIV-positive patients. We present a case of an HIV-positive 39-year-old male with ureteral stent encrustation and kidney stone. Ureterolithotripsy using a disposable flexible ureteroscope is performed. The postoperative evolution was favorable. The disposable flexible ureteroscope is effective in the treatment of HIV combined with ureteral stent encrustation.

Single use flexible ureteroscopes: a review of current technologies and cost effectiveness analysis

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Flexible ureteroscopy (fURS) has evolved into both diagnostic and therapeutic modalities. Our review discusses the cost-effectiveness of single use flexible ureteroscopes (su-fURS) and the use of these instruments in routine urological practice.

RECENT FINDINGS

There are studies which support the use of su-fURS with an argument of both cost and clinical utility over reusable flexible ureteroscopes (ru-fURS). However, the cost may vary across countries, hence is difficult to compare the results based on the current literature. Perhaps therefore there is a role for hybrid strategy incorporating ru- and su-fURS, where su-fURS are employed in complex endourological cases with a high risk of scope damage or fracture to preserve ru-fURS, with the ability to maintain clinical activity in such an event.

SUMMARY

While there seems to be some cost advantages with su-fURS with reduced sterilization and maintenance costs, the data supporting it is sparse and limited. This choice of scope would depend on the durability of ru-fURS, procedural volumes, limited availability of sterilization units in some centers and potential risk of infectious complications. It is time that cost-benefit analysis is conducted with defined outcomes for a given healthcare set-up to help with the decision making on the type of scope that best serves their needs.

Comparing outcomes of single-use vs reusable ureteroscopes: a systematic review and meta analysis

Flexible ureterolithotripsy is a frequent urological procedure, usually used to remove stones from the kidney and upper ureter. Reusable uretero-scopes were the standard tool for that procedure, but recent concerns related to sterility and maintenance and repair costs created the opportunity to develop new technologies. In 2016, the first single-use digital flexible ureteroscope was introduced. Since then, other single-use ureteroscopes were developed, and studies compared them with the reusable ureteroscopes with conflicting results. The purpose of this study is to describe the literature that compares the performance of single-use and reusable flexible ureteroscopes in retrograde intrarenal surgery for urinary stones. A Systematic Review was performed in October 2022 in accordance with the Cochrane Handbook and the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and MetaAnalyses (PRISMA). A search in MEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of Science, Google Scholar and LILACS retrieved 10,039 articles. After screening, 12 articles were selected for the Meta-Analysis. No differences were found in stone-free rate (OR 1.31, CI 95% [0.88, 1.97]), operative time (MD 0.12, CI 95% [-5.52, 5.76]), incidence of post-operative fever (OR 0.64, CI 95% [0.22, 1.89]), or incidence of post-operative urinary tract infection (OR 0.63 CI 95% [0.30, 1.32]). No differences were observed in the studied variables. Hence, the device choice should rely on the availability, cost analysis and surgeons' preference.

Beyond Endoscopes: Pilot Study of Surgical Instrument Lumen Inspection

Objective: Borescope examinations of endoscope channels are commonly described in literature, but no studies on surgical instrument lumen inspection have been published recently. Inadequately processed surgical instruments have been implicated in patient infections. This study assessed the utility of borescopes for inspecting surgical instruments. Methods: The study team inspected and photographed sterilized, patient-ready arthroscopic shaver handpieces and suction tips using a tablet camera and borescopes to characterize internal anatomy, defects found in lumens, and the impact of recleaning on debris or residues. Results: Ten suctions and eight shavers were inspected. All suctions had internal ridges and suction holes that were perpendicular to the lumen. All shavers had visible ridges, elbows, and lever mechanisms inside lumens. Of the 18 instruments, 16 (88%) had internal features that appeared rough or jagged and 17 (94%) had visible debris or discoloration in the lumens. Recleaning efforts generally were effective for suctions, but multiple rounds of recleaning with enhanced steps were less effective for shavers, which were replaced. Researchers documented retained soil and brush bristles in several new shavers despite following manufacturer instructions for cleaning and found visible damage and discoloration within five uses. Discussion: This study demonstrated the value of borescope examinations for surgical instrument lumens. Visual inspections identified anatomical features that could influence cleaning effectiveness and detected residual soil, discoloration, and debris in most instruments. The findings suggested that manufacturer cleaning instructions were insufficient and additional cleaning was not always effective. In response, the site's multidisciplinary team strengthened risk assessment protocols and enhanced their cleaning practices.

Reuse of Single-Use Devices in Endourology: A Review

Introduction: Single-use medical devices (SUDs) are labeled for single use only, but rising health care costs along with the absence of visible deterioration in the quality of SUDs after one use have led to their reprocessing and reuse. In the past, SUDs mainly consisted of equipment such as guidewires and catheters. However, SUDs have now expanded to flexible endoscopes and energy devices that are much more expensive. Reuse of such devices raises concerns of infection transmission, safety, and lack of effectiveness. We reviewed the disinfection process, cost benefits, potential harms, and legal status of the reuse of SUDs in endourology. Materials and Methods: PUBMED, Embase, and the Cochrane Library databases were searched for articles published between 1970 and March 2023 that reported the reuse of SUDs using the search terms "reuse"; "single-use device"; "disposable medical devices"; "reprocessing of single-use device"; "endourology"; and keywords related to cost, safety, sterilization, and legal status. Online resources were found using Google search engines. Articles on cost savings, device malfunction, disinfection, or legal status in different countries were reviewed. Results and Conclusions: Reusing SUDs has financial, environmental, and practical advantages. The potential savings on medical expenses is the most compelling argument for reprocessing disposable devices. Reusing medical equipment also contributes to the reduction of toxic biodegradable waste. However, there is a scarcity of data on the safety and efficacy of reused SUDs. For patient safety and to avoid complications, the practice must be regulated with established reprocessing standards.

Reuse and Reprocessing of Endoscopic Instruments: Con

Reprocessing of endoscopic equipment generates greenhouse gas emissions, releases toxic substances into the environment, and consumes large quantities of water. The use of alternative materials, such as single-use devices with a low carbon footprint and recycled materials, and reprocessing without the use of water and toxic products represent sustainable solutions.

Reprocessing semicritical items: An overview and an update on the shift from HLD to sterilization for endoscopes

BACKGROUND

Semicritical medical devices are defined as items that come into contact with mucous membranes or nonintact skin (e.g., gastrointestinal endoscopes, endocavitary probes). Such medical devices require minimally high-level disinfection.

METHODS

Analyze the methods used to reprocess semicritical medical devices and identify methods and new technologies to reduce the risk of infection.

RESULTS

The reprocessing methods for semicritical medical devices is described as well as a shift from high-level disinfection to sterilization for lumened endoscopes.

CONCLUSIONS

Strict adherence to current guidelines and transition to sterilization for endoscopes is required as more outbreaks have been linked to inadequately disinfected endoscopes and other semicritical items than any other reusable medical devices.

Effects of Time, Temperature, and Humidity on Soil Drying on Medical Devices

In the healthcare environment, delays can occur that prevent reusable devices from being processed within the specified time outlined in manufacturers' instructions for use. It has been suggested in the literature and industry standards that residual soil components, such as proteins, may undergo a chemical change when they are exposed to heat or experience prolonged drying times under ambient conditions. However, little experimental data are available in the literature to document this change or how is may be addressed for cleaning efficacy. This study presents the effects of time and environmental conditions on contaminated instrumentation from the point of use until the cleaning process begins. It demonstrates that soil drying after a period of eight hours changes the solubility of the soil complex, with a significant change occurring after 72 hours. Temperature also contributes to chemical changes in protein. Although no significant difference occurred between 4°C and 22°C, temperatures greater than 22°C demonstrated a decrease in soil solubility in water. An increase in humidity prevented the soil from completely drying and prevented the chemical changes affecting solubility from occurring.

Prospective Analysis of Versatility and User Satisfaction with a Novel Single-Use Cystoscope with Working Channel

INTRODUCTION

In the present study, a prospective systematic assessment of the clinical utility of the Ambu® aScopeTM 4 Cysto Reverse Deflection with regard to image quality, maneuverability, and navigation in an outpatient and inpatient setting was performed.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A prospective multicenter study was performed for evaluation of the instrument during routine cystoscopy. We evaluated the clinical performance of the instruments using a standardized user questionnaire in different categories including image quality, treatment success, imaging of all areas of the urinary bladder, quality of navigation, flexibility of the endoscope, and satisfaction with the device. Statistical analyses were performed by SPSS using the Kruskal-Wallis and Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney tests. A p value of p ≤ 0.05 was defined as statistically significant.

RESULTS

A total of 200 cystoscopies were performed, and the questionnaire response rate was 100%. The image quality was rated as very good in 65.5% (n = 131), good in 30.5% (n = 61), and neutral in 4% (n = 8) of cases. The criteria for poor or very poor were not mentioned. The characteristic "treatment success based on image quality" was also evaluated as very good in 49% (n = 98) and good in 50.5% (n = 101). The analysis revealed a very good or good overall impression of the examiners in all cases. Replacement of the cystoscope was not necessary during any of the examinations. However, in 3 cases, technical difficulties were documented. Further analysis of the data showed that physicians with less professional experience rated the visualization of the urinary bladder (p = 0.007) and the treatment success with regard to image quality significantly worse (p = 0.007).

CONCLUSION

The Ambu® aScope™ 4 Cysto Reverse Deflection shows high satisfaction values among users in clinical routine. In analogy to other studies with flexible endoscopes, urologists with more professional experience show higher satisfaction values than examiners with less training in flexible endoscopy.

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

Objective: Urinary tract infection (UTI) is a common complication after ureteroscopy. Despite sterilization, there is evidence that reusable ureteroscopes can still harbor bacteria. Whether this property is associated with increased risk of UTI is unknown. The objective of this study was to compare rates of postoperative UTI after ureteroscopy for urolithiasis performed with single-use ureteroscopes vs reusable ureteroscopes. Materials and Methods: This was a single-center, retrospective cohort study of all patients who underwent ureteroscopy for urolithiasis between June 2012 and March 2021. Outcomes were compared between those who underwent stone removal with single-use and reusable ureteroscopes. The primary endpoint was postoperative UTI. The secondary endpoints were intra-operative and postoperative outcomes, and health service utilization after surgery. Results: Of 991 patients identified, 500 (50.4%) underwent ureteroscopy with a single-use ureteroscope. Rates of postoperative UTI were lower in those undergoing ureteroscopic stone removal with a single-use ureteroscope compared to a reusable ureteroscope (6.5% vs 11.9%, p = 0.018). In multivariable analysis, use of a single-use ureteroscope was associated with lower odds of postoperative UTI compared to a reusable ureteroscope when adjusting for risk (odds ratio 0.37, p = 0.015). Use of a single-use ureteroscope was associated with a higher stone clearance rate compared to a reusable ureteroscope (90.0% vs 83.9%, p = 0.005). There was no difference in operative time, overall complication rate, readmission, or emergency department visits between two groups. Conclusion: Single-use ureteroscopes are associated with a twofold decreased risk of UTI and increased stone clearance rate after ureteroscopy for urolithiasis compared to reusable ureteroscopes.

Comparison of Flexible Ureteroscope Performance between Reusable and Single-Use Models

BACKGROUND

Single-use flexible ureteroscopes for urinary retention have been developed in recent years as an alternative to reusable ureteroscopes in order to eliminate the risk of cross-infections and to solve the primary limitations of traditional reusable flexible ureteroscopes for urinary retention.

METHODS

In this study, we evaluated and contrasted three of the most recent types of flexible ureteroscopes, including two digital reusable versions (Olympus URF-V and Olympus URF-V2) and one single-use model (Pusen Medi-calUscope UE3022), in both ex vivo and in vivo scenarios. The influence of a variety of instruments on the flow of irrigation and its deflection was investigated ex vivo. In the in vivo investigation, a total of 40 patients were treated with retrograde fURS utilizing URF-V, 20 patients were treated with URF-V2, and 20 patients were treated with single-use fURS. The visibility and maneuverability of each fURS were evaluated by the same urologist during the procedures, and the results were compared.

RESULTS

Intraoperatively, we compared the image quality of reusable (URF-V and URF-V2) and single-use fURS USCOPE UE3022 cameras and found that there was no statistically significant difference between the two types of camera. The score for maneuverability was the same (4.2) regardless of whether we used the UscopeUE3022 or the URF-V2, but it was significantly lower (3.8, p = 0.03) when we utilized the URF-V. Irrigation was about the same when utilizing reused scopes, whereas employing a single-use scope was more than fifty percent more effective.

CONCLUSIONS

The findings of our research indicate that reusable and single-use fURs have visibility and maneuverability characteristics that are at least comparable to one another. The possibilities of the single-use type in terms of irrigation flow and deflection are superior.

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

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.

RIRS with disposable or reusable scopes: does it make a difference? Results from the multicenter FLEXOR study

Introduction

With several single-use ureteroscopes now available, our aim was to analyze and compare data obtained globally from high-volume centers using both disposable and reusable flexible ureteroscopes and see if indeed in real-world practice either scope has a distinct advantage.

Methods

Retrospective analysis was performed on the FLEXOR registry, which was created as a TOWER group (Team of Worldwide Endourological Researchers, research wing of the Endourological Society) endeavor. Patients who underwent retrograde intrarenal surgery (RIRS) for renal stones from January 2018 to August 2021 were enrolled from 20 centers globally. A total of 6663 patients whose data were available for analysis were divided into Group 1 (Reusable scopes, 4808 patients) versus Group 2 (Disposable scopes, 1855 patients).

Results

The age and gender distribution were similar in both groups. The mean stone size was 11.8 mm and 9.6 mm in Groups 2 and 1, respectively (p < 0.001). Group 2 had more patients with >2 cm stones, lower pole stones and of higher Hounsfield unit. Thulium fiber laser (TFL) was used more in Group 2 (p < 0.001). Patients in Group 2 had a slightly higher stone-free rate (SFR) (78.22%) and a lower number of residual fragments (RFs) compared with Group 1 (p < 0.001). The need for further treatments for RF and overall complications was comparable between groups. On multivariate analysis, overall complications were more likely to occur in elderly patients, larger stone size, lower pole stones, and were also more when using disposable scopes with longer operative time. RFs were significantly higher (p < 0.001) for lower pole, larger, harder, multiple stones and in elderly.

Conclusion

Our real-world practice observations suggest that urologists choose disposable scopes for bigger, lower pole, and harder stones, and it does indeed help in improving the single-stage SFR if used correctly, with the appropriate lasers and lasing techniques in expert hands.

Clinical Utility of a Single-Use Flexible Cystoscope Compared with a Standard Reusable Device: A Randomized Noninferiority Study

Objective: A noninferiority assessment of single-use digital flexible cystoscopy (FC) compared with standard reusable FC for bladder cancer surveillance, and investigation of lower urinary tract symptoms. Patients and Methods: Patients requiring FC who met inclusion criteria were randomly assigned to have their procedure performed using a single-use cystoscope (Ambu^® aScope™ 4 Cysto System) or a standard reusable cystoscope (Olympus CYF-VH flexible video cystoscope). Primary outcomes were noninferiority of the single-use cystoscope, in terms of effective procedure completion rate, image quality, light quality, and maneuverability. Secondary objectives compared safety, operative, and perioperative time. The noninferiority margin was set at -10%. Results: One hundred one patients completed the study (n = 50 trial, n = 51 control). All primary outcomes demonstrated noninferiority of the single-use cystoscope, compared with standard reusable FC. Effective completion rate, image quality, light quality, and maneuverability between single-use and reusable cystoscopes were 100% and 98% (confidence interval [CI]: -0.059 to 0.019); 96% and 100% (CI: -0.014 to 0.092); 98% and 100% (CI: -0.018 to 0.058); and 98% and 100% (CI: -0.018 to 0.058). There was no difference in operation time (p = 0.415) or total theater use time (p = 0.441) between groups. Adverse event rates were 4.08% and 4.16% in the trial group and control groups, respectively. Conclusion: The single-use Ambu flexible cystoscope is noninferior to standard FC in terms of procedure completion and light quality, image quality, and maneuverability. Single-use flexible cystoscopes are an effective and safe alternative to reusable flexible cystoscopes and may act as a suitable alternative or adjunct in the urologist's armamentarium.

The utility of lighted magnification and borescopes for visual inspection of flexible endoscopes

INTRODUCTION

Infections have been linked to damaged or contaminated endoscopes with visible defects. Endoscope processing standards and guidelines state endoscopes should be visually inspected every time they are used. This study evaluated a new visual inspection program using magnification and borescopes in an endoscopy department that had not previously utilized these tools.

METHODS

Site personnel were given visual inspection tools and training before systematically examining fully processed endoscopes twice during a 2-month period. A risk assessment protocol was used to determine whether endoscopes required recleaning, repair, or other action. Findings were documented using log sheets, photographs, and videotapes.

RESULTS

Visible damage and residue or debris were observed in 100% of 25 endoscopes at both assessments, and 76% required repair. Defects at baseline included scratches (88%); channel shredding or peeling (80%); adhesive band disintegration (80%); residual soil or debris (white 84%; black 68%; brown 40%; yellow/green 36%; and orange/red 8%); retained fluid (52%); and dents (40%). Findings were similar at follow-up.

DISCUSSION/CONCLUSIONS

Visual inspection with magnification and borescopes identified actionable defects that could interfere with processing effectiveness in 100% of endoscopes. Infection preventionists have a critical role to play in supporting processing personnel now that standards, guidelines, and manufacturer instructions recommend enhanced visual inspection of every endoscope, every time.

Environmental impact of single-use and reusable flexible cystoscopes

OBJECTIVES

To compare the carbon footprint and environmental impact of single-use and reusable flexible cystoscopes.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We analysed the expected clinical lifecycle of single-use (Ambu aScope™ 4 Cysto) and reusable (Olympus CYF-V2) flexible cystoscopes, from manufacture to disposal. Performance data on cumulative procedures between repairs and before decommissioning were derived from a high-volume multispecialty practice. We estimated carbon expenditures per-case using published data on endoscope manufacturing, energy consumption during transportation and reprocessing, and solid waste disposal.

RESULTS

A fleet of 16 reusable cystoscopes in service for up to 135 months averaged 207 cases between repairs and 3920 cases per lifecycle. Based on a manufacturing carbon footprint of 11.49 kg CO₂ /kg device for reusable flexible endoscopes and 8.54 kg CO₂ /kg device for single-use endoscopes, the per-case manufacturing cost was 1.37 kg CO₂ for single-use devices and 0.0017 kg CO₂ for reusable devices. The solid mass of single-use and reusable devices was 0.16 and 0.57 kg, respectively. For reusable devices, the energy consumption of reusable device reprocessing using an automated endoscope reprocessor was 0.20 kg CO₂ , and per-case costs of device repackaging and repair were 0.005 and 0.02 kg CO₂ , respectively. The total estimated per-case carbon footprint of single-use and reusable devices was 2.40 and 0.53 kg CO₂ , respectively, favouring reusable devices.

CONCLUSION

In this lifecycle analysis, the environmental impact of reusable flexible cystoscopes is markedly less than single-use cystoscopes. The primary contributor to the per-case carbon cost of reusable devices is energy consumption of reprocessing.

An in vitro Comparative Assessment of Single-Use Flexible Ureteroscopes Using a Standardized Ureteroscopy Training Model

INTRODUCTION

Perceived benefits like decreased contamination rates and reduced postoperative incidence of complications after urolithiasis surgery have led to increased adoption of single-use flexible ureteroscopes (su-fURS). Using a validated, standardized simulator model with enhanced "fluoroscopic" capabilities, we performed an in vitro comparative assessment of four commercially available models of su-fURS. Both objective and subjective parameters were assessed in this study.

METHODS

Two standardized tasks, (1) exploration of the model's kidney collecting system and (2) repositioning of a stone fragment from the upper renal to lower renal pole were assigned to participants, who performed these tasks on all four scopes. Four models of su-fURS (Boston LithoVue, PUSEN PU3033A, REDPINE, INNOVEX EU-ScopeTM) were assessed, with task timings as end-points for objective analysis. Cumulative "fluoroscopic" time was also recorded as a novel feature of our enhanced model. Post-task questionnaires evaluating specific components of the scopes were distributed to document subjective ratings.

RESULTS

Both subjective and objective performances (except stone repositioning time) across all four su-fURS demonstrated significant differences. However, objective performance (task timings) did not reflect subjective scope ratings by the participants (Rs < 0.6). Upon Kruskal-Wallis H test with post hoc analyses, REDPINE and INNOVEX EU-ScopeTM were the preferred su-fURS as rated by the participants, with overall scope scores of 9.00/10 and 9.57/10.

CONCLUSIONS

Using a standardized in vitro simulation model with enhanced fluoroscopic capabilities, we demonstrated both objective and subjective differences between models of su-fURS. However, variations in perception of scope features (visibility, image quality, deflection, maneuverability, ease of stone retrieval) did not translate into actual technical performance. Eventually, the optimal choice of su-fURS fundamentally lies in individual surgeon preference, as well as cost-related factors.

High Prevalence Rate of Microbial Contamination in Patient-Ready Gastrointestinal Endoscopes in Tehran, Iran: an Alarming Sign for the Occurrence of Severe Outbreaks

An alarmingly increasing number of outbreaks caused by contaminated gastrointestinal (GI) endoscopes are being reported as a particularly concerning issue. This study is the first large-scale multicenter survey to evaluate the contamination of GI endoscopes in Tehran, Iran. This multicenter study was conducted among 15 tertiary referral and specialized gastrointestinal settings. Reprocessed GI endoscopes were sampled by the sequence of the flush-brush-flush method. Bacterial and viral contamination, as well as antimicrobial resistance, were explored by culture and molecular assays. A total of 133 reprocessed and ready-to-use GI endoscopes were investigated. In phase I and phase II, 47% and 32%, respectively, of the GI endoscopes were determined to be contaminated. GI flora was the most prevalent contaminant isolated from GI endoscopes, in which the most predominant bacteria were Pseudomonas aeruginosa, Escherichia coli, and Klebsiella pneumoniae, in both phase I and II evaluations. The majority of the isolated bacteria in the current study were considered multidrug-resistant organisms (MDROs). More importantly, we recovered carbapenem-resistant nonfermentative Gram-negative bacilli (CRNFGNB), carbapenem-resistant Enterobacterales (CRE), extended-spectrum β-lactamase (ESBL)-producing Enterobacterales (ESBL-E), multidrug-resistant Clostridioides difficile, vancomycin-resistant Enterococcus (VRE), and drug-resistant Candida spp. Disconcertingly, our molecular assays revealed contamination of some reprocessed GI endoscopes with hepatitis B virus (HBV), hepatitis C virus (HCV), and even HIV. This multicenter study indicates a higher-than-expected contamination rate among reprocessed and ready-for-patient-use GI endoscopes, which suggests a higher-than-expected endoscopy-associated infection (EAI) risk, and potentially, morbidity and mortality rate, associated with endoscopy procedures in Tehran, Iran. IMPORTANCE In the light of severe outbreaks caused by multidrug-resistant microorganisms due to contaminated GI endoscopes, understanding to what extent GI endoscopes are inadequately reprocessed is crucial. Several studies assessed contamination of GI endoscopes with various outcomes across the world; however, the prevalence and risk factors of contaminated GI endoscopes and potential subsequent nosocomial spread are still unknown in Iran. The present study is the first large-scale multicenter survey to evaluate the microbial contamination of repossessed and ready-to-use GI endoscopes in Tehran, Iran. Our study showed a higher-than-expected contamination rate among reprocessed GI endoscopes, which suggests potential seeding of deadly but preventable outbreaks associated with endoscopy procedures in Iran. These results suggest that the current reprocessing and process control guidelines do not suffice in Iran. The current study is of particular importance and could provide insights into unrecognized and unidentified endoscopy-associated outbreaks in Iran.

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.

Cost and Environmental Impact of Disposable Flexible Cystoscopes Compared to Reusable Devices

Objectives: To quantify the environmental impact and costs associated with flexible cystoscopy procedures from an institutional perspective, with particular attention for the comparison between disposable and reusable cystoscopes. Materials and Methods: This is a single-center retrospective study, including all flexible cystoscopies performed between 2020 and 2021 using reusable or single-use devices. The Ambu aS4C single-use cystoscope (Ballerup, Denmark) gradually replaced the reusable device in our center, with exclusive use from October 2021. Reprocessing costs for reusable cystoscopes were evaluated using a micro-costing approach. The environmental impact of reusable and disposable cystoscopes was assessed by the amount of waste and water consumed for each procedure. Results: A total of 1578 flexible cystoscopies using reusable cystoscopes were performed in 2020, and 550 cystoscopies were performed using the Ambu aS4C cystoscope from October 2021 to February 2022. The cost of flexible cystoscopy with a reusable and a disposable endoscope was €196 and €192, respectively. The amount of waste generated by reprocessing reusable and disposable cystoscopes was 800 and 200 g per procedure, respectively. Water consumption for sterilization of the reusable cystoscope was 60 L per procedure, whereas no water consumption was required with the Ambu aS4C cystoscope. A 100% Ambu aS4C cystoscope use would reduce waste generation and water consumption by 946.8 kg and 94.68 m3 per year. Conclusion: In this study, implementing a strategy of using 100% disposable cystoscopes was associated with similar costs and reduced waste generation and water consumption compared to reusable devices. Future studies are needed to compare the carbon footprint of these devices, through a comprehensive and rigorous life cycle assessment from manufacturing to recycling.

Hybrid flexible ureteroscopy strategy in the management of renal stones - a narrative review

The introduction of single-use flexible ureteroscopes (suFURSs) in daily practice tends to overcome the main limitations of reusable ureteroscopes (reFURSs), in terms of high acquisition costs, maintenance, breakages and repairing costs, reprocessing and sterilization, as retrograde intrarenal surgery (RIRS) is promoted as first-line treatment of renal stones in most cases. A hybrid strategy implies having both instruments in the armamentarium of endourology and choosing the best strategy for cost-efficiency and protecting expensive reusable instruments in selected high-risk for breakage cases such as large stones of the inferior calyx, a steep infundibulopelvic angle or narrow infundibulum, or abnormal anatomy as in horseshoe and ectopic kidney. In terms of safety and efficiency, data present suFURSs as a safe alternative considering operating time, stone-free, and complication rates. An important aspect is highlighted by several authors about reusable instrument disinfection as various pathogens are still detected after proper sterilization. This comprehensive narrative review aims to analyze available data comparing suFURSs and reFURSs, considering economic, technical, and operative aspects of the two types of instruments, as well as the strategy of adopting a hybrid approach to selecting the most appropriate flexible ureteroscope in each case.

WiScope® single use digital flexible ureteroscope versus reusable flexible ureteroscope for management of renal stones: a prospective randomized study

OBJECTIVES

To compare the clinical performance and surgical outcomes of the new digital single use flexible ureteroscope (WiScope^®) with a reusable digital flexible ureteroscope.

PATIENT AND METHODS

Our prospective study includes patients with renal stones less than 2 cm who underwent retrograde flexible ureteroscopy and laser lithotripsy. Patients were randomized into two groups: group A included patients who underwent laser lithotripsy using WiScope^® Single use digital flexible ureteroscope and group B included patients who underwent laser lithotripsy using reusable flexible ureteroscope. Image quality, deflection, ease of insertion, maneuverability, and overall performance were assessed using either a visual analog or Likert scale. Operative outcomes and complications were collected and analyzed in both groups.

RESULTS

A total of 242 patients were included in our study. There were 121 patients in the WiScope^® group and 121 patients in reusable ureteroscope group. The WiScope^® had higher maneuverability (9.3 ± 0.7 vs. 7.2 ± 0.8, P < 0.001) and less limb fatigue but had lower image quality when compared to reusable digital flexible ureteroscope (7.6 ± 0.9 vs. 9.2 ± 0.6, P < 0.001). There were no differences in operative time, complication rates and rates of relook ureteroscopy.

CONCLUSIONS

The WiScope^® single use flexible ureteroscope has comparable outcomes to the reusable flexible ureteroscope with regard to maneuverability, limb fatigue, and deflection. However, it has a lower image quality.

Clinical Evaluation of Single-Use, Fiber-Optic, and Digital Ureterorenoscopes in the Treatment of Kidney Stones

<b><i>Introduction:</i></b> Indication of ureteroscopy for the treatment of urolithiasis has expanded immensely over the last decade. Fiber-optic and digital reusable instruments present the standard in clinical practice, but various newly available single-use devices might offer an exciting alternative. To date, the evidence is limited to clinical evaluation and efficacy of single-use ureteroscopes (URS) compared to standard instruments. Therefore, we evaluate a single-use instrument’s clinical characteristics and efficacy in direct comparison with a fiber-optic and digital device. <b><i>Methods:</i></b> A prospective study was conducted for patients undergoing endoscopic therapy for urolithiasis at a tertiary care center. We evaluated the different instruments’ clinical performance in categories of visibility, the stability of visibility, irrigation flow, and surgeon’s satisfaction. Statistical analyses were performed by SPSS using the Chi-Quadrat and Kruskal-Wallis test. A <i>p</i> value of <i>p</i> ≤ 0.05 was defined as statistically significant. <b><i>Results:</i></b> A total number of 77 patients were included and distributed as follows: 35 (46.7%) single-use, 19 (25.3%) digital, and 23 (28%) fiber-optic URS. Patients’ characteristics were homogenous over the three cohorts in sex, stone amount, and localization. The stone-free rate was equal in all three cohorts (<i>p</i> = 0.31). We identify stability of visibility, irrigation flow, and satisfaction were equal in all cohorts (<i>p</i> = 0.73; <i>p</i> = 0.20; <i>p</i> = 0.20). We report a significant difference in visibility, with 100% rated excellent in the digital URS group (<i>p</i> = 0.028). <b><i>Discussion/Conclusions:</i></b> Single-use URS achieve comparable clinical outcomes with equal stone-free rates in direct comparison with fiber-optic and digital reusable instruments. Accordingly, single-use devices present an adequate alternative for endoscopic therapy of urolithiasis.

Repair Rate and Associated Costs of Reusable Flexible Ureteroscopes: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

CONTEXT

The refined mechanics of a flexible ureteroscope (fURS) are vulnerable to damage. Sending the fURS for repair is costly and has driven interest toward estimating the resources used for fURS repairs.

OBJECTIVE

To systematically review available literature and to estimate the total weighted repair rate of an fURS and the average repair cost per ureteroscopy.

EVIDENCE ACQUISITION

A systematic review was conducted by searching the MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library databases. The average costs of all repairs identified in the included studies were extracted. A random-effect model was used to calculate the pooled total fURS repair rate. The total weighted repair rate and average cost per repair were multiplied to provide an average cost of repair per ureteroscopy procedure.

EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS

We identified 18 studies that fulfilled the inclusion criteria, which included 411 repairs from 5900 investigated ureteroscopy procedures. The calculated weighted repair rate was 6.5% ± 0.745% (95% confidence interval: 5.0-7.9%; I2 = 75.3%), equivalent to 15 ureteroscopy procedures before repair. The average cost per repair was 6808 USD; according to the weighted repair rate of 6.5%, this corresponds to an average repair cost of 441 USD per procedure. Egger's regression test did not reveal a significant publication bias (p = 0.07).

CONCLUSIONS

This is the first meta-analysis to estimate the repair rate of the fURS used for ureteroscopy. Our analysis demonstrates a repair rate of 6.5%, equivalent to 15 ureteroscopy procedures between fURS repairs and a repair cost of 441 USD per procedure. Ureteroscopy practices should consider fURS breakage rates and repair costs to optimize the use of reusable versus disposable devices.

PATIENT SUMMARY

We reviewed available literature investigating the repair rate of a flexible ureteroscope (fURS). We found that fURSs are sent for repair after every 15 ureteroscopy procedures, corresponding to 441 USD per procedure in repair cost.

Droplet dispersal in decontamination areas of instrument reprocessing suites

BACKGROUND

Personnel working in sterile processing or endoscope reprocessing departments are at high risk of exposure to tissue, blood, and patient fluids when decontaminating reusable medical instruments and equipment. The effectiveness of protective measures for reprocessing personnel has not yet been systematically evaluated in real-world settings.

OBJECTIVE

This pilot project aimed to identify reprocessing activities that generate splashes, determine how far droplets can travel in decontamination areas, and assess personal protective equipment exposure during routine activities.

METHODS

Moisture-detection paper was affixed to environmental surfaces and personal protective equipment in a sterile processing department. Droplet dispersal was assessed after personnel simulated performance of routine reprocessing tasks.

RESULTS

Visible droplets were generated during every reprocessing activity except running the sonication sink. Droplets traveled at least 3 feet when filling a sink, brushing a ureteroscope, and using a power sprayer to rinse a basin. Some activities dispersed droplets up to 5 feet from the sink. Personal protective equipment was splashed during most activities and did not prevent skin exposure even when properly donned and doffed.

CONCLUSION

This hypothesis-generating pilot project found that routine reprocessing activities generated substantial splashing, and currently recommended personal protective equipment did not adequately protect sterile processing personnel from exposure.

Disposable Ureteroscopes in Urology: Current State and Future Prospects

Ureteroscopy is the most common surgical modality for stone treatment. Reusable flexible ureteroscopes are delicate instruments that require expensive maintenance and repairs. Multiple single use ureteroscopes have been developed recently to combat the expensive and time-intensive sterilization and repair of ureteroscopes. Although multiple studies have looked at different aspects of reusable and single use ureteroscopes, there is significant heterogeneity in performance measures and cost between the 2 categories, and neither has a clear advantage. Both can be used successfully, and individual and institution level factors should be considered when deciding which ureteroscope to use.

Comparison Between Single-Use Flexible Ureteroscope and Reusable Flexible Ureteroscope for Upper Urinary Calculi: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Objective: This article explores the differences in the effectiveness and safety of the treatment of the upper urinary calculi between single-use flexible ureteroscope (su-fURS) and reusable flexible ureteroscope (ru-fURS).

Methods: We systematically searched PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, Scopus database, and CNKI databases within a period from the date of database establishment to November 2020. Stata 16 was used for calculation and statistical analyses.

Results: A total of 1,020 patients were included in the seven studies. The statistical differences were only found in the Clavien–Dindo grade II postoperative complication [odds ratio (OR) 0.47; 95% CI 0.23–0.98; p = 0.04]. No significant statistical differences were observed in operative time (OT), estimated blood loss (EBL), length of hospital stay (LOS), and stone-free rate (SFR).

Conclusion: Our meta-analysis results demonstrate that su-fURS, compared with ru-fURS, has similar effectiveness and better security for treating upper urinary calculi.

Single-use flexible ureteroscopes: update and perspective in developing countries. A narrative review

Flexible ureteroscopy is a well-established method for treatment of urinary stones but flexible ureteroscopes are expensive and fragile devices with a very limited lifetime. Since 2006 with the advent of digital flexible ureteroscopes a great evolution has occurred. The first single-use flexible ureteroscope was launched in 2011 and new models are coming to the market. The aim of this article is to review the characteristics of these devices, compare their results with the reusable devices and evaluate the cost-benefits of adopting single-use flexible ureteroscopes in developing countries.

[Single-use versus reusable flexible ureteroscope: Technical and medico-economic aspects]

INTRODUCTION

Sate of the art on the indications, methods of implementation and medico-economic considerations of reusable flexible ureteroscopes (URSr) vs single use (URSuu)?

METHOD

Review of the literature (Pubmed) on reusable and single-use ureteroscopes, as well as on the expertise of our center. A PubMed search and narrative review of the data was performed in July 2021. Only articles in French or English were selected.

RESULTS

The URSr and URSuu have similar technical characteristics and are suitable for the exploration of the upper urinary excretory tract: treatment of stones of the kidney <2cm or of the ureter. The URSr is the most common type of ureteroscope. URSuu are newer and associated with many advantages: no sterilization procedure, immediate availability of equipment in the operating room, reduced waste production at the institutional level. A hybrid use of URSr and URSuu currently seems to be the best compromise from a medico-economic point of view for high volume centers. In the case of a smaller activity or a secondary site, URSuu are more advantageous and the reduction in purchasing costs should accentuate this benefit.

CONCLUSION

URSr and URSuu are technically similar and allow identical treatment of upper urinary tract pathologies. Their complementary use optimizes the care of urology patients. The barrier to the exclusive use of URSuu remains their cost.

Can the introduction of single-use flexible ureteroscopes increase the longevity of reusable flexible ureteroscopes at a high volume centre?

OBJECTIVES

To assess whether the introduction of single use flexibles ureteroscopes (su-fURS) at our high-volume centre had an advantageous impact on the turn-over and breakage rates of reusable fURS (re-fURS).

METHODS

We analysed re-fURS number of usages and breakages at our centre between February 2015 and December 2018. We recorded the number of usages for analysed scope between the first usage until a breakage requiring reconditioning. Usage count was restarted following each reconditioning episode. Since su-fURS (Lithovue, Boston Scientific, USA) were introduced at our center in September 2016, we had the chance to compare different re-fURS life cycles according to both su-fURS availability and usage intensity (i.e., number of su-fURS used during each re-fURS life cycle). We then explored the relationship between su-fURS usage intensity and reusable scope survival (i.e., number of utilizations before any breakage requiring reconditioning) using locally weighted scatterplot smoothing (LOWESS) approach.

RESULTS

Five different re-fURSs were employed at our centre, for a total of 1820 usages and 40 breakages requiring reconditioning. The overall mean (SD) number of usages before breaking was 40 (22). After su-fURS introduction, mean (SD) re-fURS number of usages increased from 35 (22) to 49 (20), (+ 40%, p = 0.02). The relationship between su-fURS usage intensity and reusable scopes survival showed a linear survival increase after 10 or more su-fURS scopes were used per life cycle.

CONCLUSIONS

The life cycle of re-fURS increased by 40% after the introduction of su-fURS. Ten or more used su-fURS per life cycle were associated with increased re-fURS survival.

Evolution of Single-Use Urologic Endoscopy: Benchtop and Initial Clinical Assessment of a New Single-Use Flexible Cystoscope

Introduction Office cystoscopy is one of the most frequently performed procedures by a urologist. However, single-use cystoscopes remain quite undeveloped. Ambu® has developed single-use broncoscopes, rhinolaryngoscopes and duodenoscopes. Recently, they released a single-use cystoscope. In this study, we performed a benchtop and initial clinical assessment of the Ambu® aScope™ (4) Cysto single-use cystoscope. Methods Ten new, never-used Ambu® aScope™ (4) Cysto single-use cystoscopes were assessed for optical performance, maximal tip flexion and irrigation flow rate with empty working channel, 365μm laser fiber, 0.035in hydrophilic-tipped wire, 1.9Fr nitinol basket and a 1.8mm flexible stent grasper. All cystoscopes were then fully flexed 25 times in each direction, and maximal flexion angles were re-measured with and without instruments. Optical resolution, distortion, and depth of field was measured and compared to our reusable digital flexible cystoscopes. Assessment of clinical use was performed for inpatient bedside procedures using a Likert feedback survey and the NASA Task-Load-Index. Results Maximal upward flexion exceeded 200^○ and 160^○ for all working instruments in upward and downward flexion. Downward flexion demonstrated different flexion between instrument groups in pre- and post-cycling (p<0.001). There was no clinical difference between the pre- or post-cycling flexion. Flow rate decreased with increasing working instrument size (p<0.001). The Olympus HD cystoscope resolution was superior at 3mm and 5mm distance, but not at other distances. The Ambu® scope was superior to the Olympus SD scope at all distances except 3mm. The aScope™ (4) Cysto had higher Likert scale survey scores for clinical use. Conclusions The new Ambu® single-use cystoscope demonstrates good flexion across instruments and comparable optics to reusable cystoscopes. Additionally, initial inpatient bedside use of the aScope™ (4) Cysto and Monitor system compares favorably to the Olympus reusable cystoscope. Further testing in clinical scenarios such as hematuria, urothelial carcinoma and operative endoscopy is warranted.

Risk factors of febrile urinary tract infections following retrograde intrarenal surgery for renal stones

We aimed to evaluate the risk factors of febrile urinary tract infection (UTI) following retrograde intrarenal surgery (RIRS) for treating renal stones.We retrospectively reviewed the data of patients with 10 - 30 mm kidney stones who underwent RIRS from January 2014 to July 2017. Evaluation included age, gender, body mass index, stone size, stone location, and operative time. All surgeries were performed by a single surgeon and ureteral stenting was not done prior surgery. The risk factors of febrile UTI after RIRS were assessed by univariate and multivariate logistic regression analysis.A total of 150 patients were included in the present study, and 17 patients (11.3%) had febrile UTI after RIRS. Mean patient age was 56.64 ± 13.91 years, and both genders were evenly distributed. Mean stone size was 14.16 ± 5.89 mm. and mean operation time was 74.50 ± 42.56 minutes. According to univariate analysis, preoperative pyuria was associated with postoperative febrile UTI. Multivariate logistic regression analysis showed that preoperative pyuria was the only independent risk factor of infectious complications after RIRS (odds ratios 8.311, 95% confidence intervals 1.759 - 39.275, P = .008). Age, gender, body mass index, comorbidity, preoperative bacteriuria, presence of hydronephrosis, renal stone characteristics, and operative time were not associated with febrile UTI after RIRS.Preoperative pyuria was the only risk factor of infectious complications following RIRS. Therefore, careful management after RIRS is necessary especially when preoperative urinalysis shows pyuria.

Improving the Reprocessing Quality of Flexible Thermolabile Endoscopes: How to Learn from Mistakes

Background: Failure in the reprocessing of thermolabile flexible endoscopes has been reported as one of the most important threats to patient health. Method: A case report and observational study was conducted, from August 2014 to December 2019, in the Digestive Endoscopy Unit of a University Hospital in Italy, where two cases of Klebsiella pneumoniae carbapenemase (KPC)-producing Klebsiella pneumoniae infections in patients undergoing endoscopic retrograde cholangio-pancreatography were observed. Following the risk/safety management practices, an epidemiological investigation was started, duodenoscopes were removed from use and the reprocessing practices reviewed. Moreover, microbiological surveillance of endoscopes was carried out according to the CDC guidelines. Results: In the first phase of sampling, 10/10 (100%) endoscopes were found to be non-compliant, of which 7 showed results for high-concern organisms (HCOs), such as KPC-K. pneumoniae, P. aeruginosa and E. coli. After implementing corrective actions, 12 out of 17 endoscopes were found to be non-compliant (70.5%), of which 8 showed results for HCOs, such as KPC-K. oxytoca and P. aeruginosa. During the last year of regular microbiological surveillance, only 23% of endoscopes (35/152) were found to be non-compliant, of which 7 showed results for HCOs, such as NDM-K. pneumoniae, P. aeruginosa and A. baumannii. The crucial issues were related to samples collected from the internal channels of duodenoscopes. Conclusion: Managing the risk associated with the reprocessing of digestive endoscopes, through risk assessment at every stage of the process, is important for the prevention of infections associated with the use of these device.

Predictors and Strategies to Avoid Mortality Following Ureteroscopy for Stone Disease: A Systematic Review from European Association of Urologists Sections of Urolithiasis (EULIS) and Uro-technology (ESUT)

CONTEXT

While kidney stone disease is common and ureteroscopy (URS) is perceived as minimally invasive, there is mortality associated with treatment.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this review was to ascertain the number of mortalities from URS for stone disease over the past three decades, identify relevant patient risk factors and predictors of mortality, and summarise the key recommendations so that similar instances can be avoided, and lessons can be learnt.

EVIDENCE ACQUISITION

A systematic literature search was conducted following Cochrane and Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) methodology for English-language article reporting on data from 1990 to December 2020. Data collated from each study included patient and stone characteristics, number of mortalities, and cause of death.

EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS

Fifteen studies met our inclusion criteria and revealed a total of 72 mortalities from ten countries. The age range of reported patients varied from 21 to 89 yr, with over 60% being above 65 yr of age and 97% with some comorbidity. Based on available data, death reports in females were three times more than those in males. The stone size ranged from 10 to 38 mm. Treatment of larger stones corresponded to a longer operative time, with procedural duration varying from 30 to 120 min. Of the reported causes of mortality in 42 patients, the aetiology was sepsis in over half of the patients, with other causes being cardiac-related, respiratory-related, multiorgan failure, and haemorrhagic complications.

CONCLUSIONS

Although the reported URS mortality rate seems to be low, there has been a rise in deaths over the past decade. Efforts must be made to have preoperative urine culture, and reduce operative time and stage procedures in patients with a large stone burden. Care must be taken in patients with robust preoperative assessment, intraoperative techniques, and postoperative monitoring for early detection of complications with interdisciplinary management of complex cases.

PATIENT SUMMARY

We reviewed the risk factors associated with postureteroscopy mortality and ways to minimise this. Evidence shows that although reported mortality remains low, there seems to be an increase in mortality in the past decade and urologists must remain vigilant of this.

Single-use flexible ureteroscopes: how to choose and what is around the corner?

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

The pace of technology development with single-use endoscopy has led to a range of disposable ureteroscopes. We review the development of single-use scopes, deconstruct the basic design and functional characteristics of available devices, and discuss future directions for next-generation platforms.

RECENT FINDINGS

Currently available devices are differentiated on the basis of several core features. The optical, deflection and irrigation characteristics are marginally different with no device clearly superior in every category. Studies comparing single-use ureteroscopes in patients linked to outcomes are limited. The incorporation of next-generation technologies into these platforms include sensors to monitor intrarenal pressure and temperature, suction of fluid and fragments, and computer vision for artificial intelligence.

SUMMARY

Each ureteroscope has specific features that may be advantageous in different circumstances. Single-use devices could transform the ureteroscope from a visual conduit to a transformative surgical instrument that improves outcomes and reduces complications.

Disposable versus Reusable Ureteroscopes: A Prospective Multicenter Randomized Comparison

Purpose

To compare reusable and disposable flexible ureteroscopes in terms of efficacy and safety for patients undergoing Retrograde Intrarenal Surgery (RIRS).

Patients and Methods

Patients with a renal stone eligible for RIRS were enrolled in this multicenter, randomized, clinical trial study. Patients were randomized into two groups: group A (90 patients) underwent RIRS with a reusable flexible ureteroscope and group B (90 patients) were treated with a disposable one.

Results

The patients’ demographics, stone features and pre-operative urine cultures were comparable between the groups. The Stone Free Rates (SFRs) were not significantly different (86.6% and 90.0% for group A and group B, respectively, p=0.11) and the mean cost for each procedure was comparable (2321 € in group A vs 2543 € in group B, p=0.09). However, the days of hospitalization and of antibiotic therapy were higher in group A (p ≤ 0.05). The overall complication rate in group A was 8.8% whilst in group B it was 3.3% (p ≤ 0.05); in particular, group A exhibited a greater number of major complications (Clavien score IIIa-V). The overall postoperative infection rate was 16.6% in group A and 3.3% in group B (p ≤ 0.05). Furthermore, none of the patients in group B developed urosepsis or had a positive blood culture, while 3 patients in group A did (p<0.05).

Conclusion

The use of disposable ureteroscopes is characterized by significantly lower post-operative complications and infection rates, while having comparable costs and SFRs vis à vis reusable ureteroscopes. Clinical Trial Registration Number: ISRCTN92289221.

A Single-Center Prospective Comparative Study of Two Single-Use Flexible Ureteroscopes: LithoVue (Boston Scientific, USA) and Uscope PU3022a (Zhuhai Pusen, China)

Introduction and Objective: Single-use flexible ureteroscopes have the benefit of decreasing infection transmission, avoiding sterilization need, and no maintenance cost. Primary objective was to compare in vivo performance and surgical outcomes with two single-use ureteroscopes: LithoVue (Boston Scientific, USA) and Uscope PU3022a (Zhuhai Pusen, China) with secondary objective being to compare in vivo vision by independent endourologist blinded to ureteroscope manufacturer. Materials and Methods: Fifty patients undergoing retrograde intrarenal surgery with <2 cm renal stones were prospectively allocated: Group 1 (25 patients) for LithoVue and group 2 (25 patients) for Uscope. Pre-, intra-, and postoperative parameters were evaluated. Vision of both ureteroscopes with and without accessory was evaluated by an independent endourologist, blinded to the make of the ureteroscope. Stone clearance was assessed with kidney, ureter, and bladder radiograph (KUB) and ultrasonography KUB at 1 month. Student's t-test for quantitative and chi-square for categorical data was used. Results: Pre- and intraoperative parameters such as need for ureteral dilatation (p > 0.05), ureteral access-sheath size (p = 0.78), accessibility to pelvicaliceal system (p > 0.05), and maneuverability (p > 0.05) were comparable in both groups. Lower-pole access was possible in all cases of LithoVue and slightly difficult in three cases of Uscope (p > 0.5). Intraoperative vision was hazy in four cases of LithoVue and eight cases of Uscope (p = 0.32) during lasing along with three cases of Uscope with accessory (p = 0.24). Blinded endourologist reported more cases of hazy vision with or without accessory or lasing in Uscope arm (p > 0.05). One device had malfunction in LithoVue arm. Complete stone clearance was achieved in all cases at 1 month. Conclusions: We conclude that performance of these two single-use ureteroscopes, LithoVue and Uscope, is comparable in clinical settings with similar clinical outcomes and complications.

Benchtop Assessment of a New Single-Use Flexible Ureteroscope

Introduction: Single-use flexible ureteroscopes are an increasingly popular alternative to reusable ureteroscopes. In this study, we performed a benchtop examination of the physical and optical properties of the new Dornier Axis™ (Webling, Germany) single-use ureteroscope. Methods: Ten new, never-used Dornier Axis ureteroscopes were assessed for optical performance, maximal tip deflection, and irrigation flow rate with an empty working channel and with insertion of 200 and 365 μm laser fibers, and a 1.9F nitinol basket. All ureteroscopes were then fully deflected 100 times in each direction, and maximal deflection angles were re-measured with and without instruments in the working channel. All measurements were performed in duplicate. In vitro optical testing for resolution, image distortion, and depth of field was performed and compared vs the LithoVue™ (Boston Scientific, Marlborough, MA) single-use ureteroscope. Statistical analyses using paired Wilcoxon rank-sum tests and Kruskal-Wallis multiple-group comparison tests were performed in R. Results: Median maximal deflection angles exceeded 300° in both directions before and after 100 full deflection cycles for all groups except the 365 μm laser fiber group. After 100 deflection cycles, there was no change in the majority of working instruments, except a decrease in upward flexion with an empty channel and 200 μm Moses™ laser fiber, and downward flexion with 200 μm Flexiva™ laser fiber (all <10°). After excluding the 365 μm fiber, there was no difference in multi-group comparison for upward and downward flexion pre- and post-cycling. Median flow rate through an empty channel was 48.0 mL/min, and it decreased significantly with all used instruments (p < 0.001). Compared with the LithoVue, the Axis demonstrated superior resolution at all tested distances and less distortion. Conclusions: The new Dornier Axis single-use ureteroscope demonstrates excellent tip deflection, which remains unchanged after 100 manual flexions in each direction. The Axis also demonstrates superior optical performance compared with the LithoVue in benchtop testing.

Device profile of the LithoVue single-use digital flexible ureteroscope in the removal of kidney stones: overview of safety and efficacy

Introduction: Flexible ureteroscopy is a commonly performed urologic procedure for visualization and treatment of the upper urinary tracts. Traditionally, ureteroscopy has been performed with reusable scopes, which have large initial purchasing costs. LithoVue was the first widely adopted single-use flexible ureteroscope clinically available in 2016 and has caused reevaluation of this paradigm. Areas covered: This review is an objective assessment of the LithoVue single-use ureteroscope based on available studies at the time of publication. The authors searched major databases for papers that included the term 'LithoVue' and included relevant papers. The state of the market, technical specifications, results from clinical studies and cost analyses, and competitors are discussed. Expert opinion: The LithoVue single-use flexible ureteroscope has comparable clinical performance to existing reusable ureteroscopes based on available data. Direct clinical comparisons to competing single-use ureteroscopes, many of which are relatively new, are limited. In numerous pre-clinical studies LithoVue performed favorably compared to available competitors. Cost analyses suggest that benefit of single-use ureteroscopes is institution-specific, and will likely be favorable at a low volume of cases and with high local costs for repairs of reusable scopes.

Duodenoscope-associated infection prevention: A call for evidence-based decision making

Background  Recent outbreaks of duodenoscope-associated multidrug-resistant organisms (MDROs) have brought attention to the infection risk from procedures performed with duodenoscopes. Prior to these MDRO outbreaks, procedures with duodenoscopes were considered safe and low risk for exogenous infection transmission, provided they were performed in strict accordance with manufacturer instructions for use and multisociety reprocessing guidelines. The attention and efforts of the scientific community, regulatory agencies, and the device industry have deepened our understanding of factors responsible for suboptimal outcomes. These include instrument design, reprocessing practices, and surveillance strategies for detecting patient and instrument colonization. Various investigations have made it clear that current reprocessing methods fail to consistently deliver a pathogen-free instrument. The magnitude of infection transmission has been underreported due to several factors. These include the types of organisms responsible for infection, clinical signs presenting in sites distant from ERCP inoculation, and long latency from the time of acquisition to infection. Healthcare providers remain hampered by the ill-defined infectious risk innate to the current instrument design, contradictory information and guidance, and limited evidence-based interventions or reprocessing modifications that reduce risk. Therefore, the objectives of this narrative review included identifying outbreaks described in the peer-reviewed literature and comparing the findings with infections reported elsewhere. Search strategies included accessing peer-reviewed articles, governmental databases, abstracts for scientific conferences, and media reports describing outbreaks. This review summarizes current knowledge, highlights gaps in traditional sources of evidence, and explores opportunities to improve our understanding of actual risk and evidence-based approaches to mitigate risk.

Flexible ureteroscopy: reuse? Or is single use the new direction?

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Single-use flexible ureteroscopes (su-fURS) aim at overcoming the main limitations of conventional reusable ureteroscopes in terms of acquisition and maintenance costs, breakages, and reprocessing. However, little data exist to date regarding the superiority of su-fURS at this regard. We aimed to perform a systematic literature review on available su-fURS performance with a focus on clinical data for all articles in the last 10 years.

RECENT FINDINGS

To date, more than 10 different su-fURS are available on the market, with different characteristics and performance. Some of these devices have top-level features, almost catching up with those observed in reusable flexible ureteroscopes. Clinical evidence is mainly available only for two models, LithoVue and Uscope PU3022, and to date it is not strong enough to support routine adoption and use of su-fURS, with a consequent lack of consensus of specific clinical indications. Cost-effectiveness analyses seem to indicate an economic disadvantage in the routine adoption of su-fURS. Environmental issues related to the use of su-fURS also remain to be inquired and addressed.

SUMMARY

Since their introduction, su-fURS have gained widespread popularity. Despite their ability at addressing reusable ureteroscope limitations, high-cost and a substantial lack of evidence are still limiting their routine adoption.

Comparative investigation of reusable and single-use flexible endoscopes for urological interventions

In order to evaluate the technical adaptability of a type of disposable endoscope compared to reusable flexible endoscopes, in vitro and in vivo studies were conducted. A disposable digital ureteroscope ("chip on tip") and two reusable endoscopes were investigated with respect to spatial resolution, geometric distortion in air and water the maximum. Additionally, the clinical performance of the disposable device was tested during clinical procedures (n = 20). The disposable endoscope showed an optical resolution of 6.72 lines/mm at 10 mm distance, similar to the other devices. In comparison, the disposable endoscope showed a barrel-shaped image distortion in air of -24.2%, which is in the middle range, but was best under water (-8.6%). The bendability of 297° (275 µm fiber) and 316° (empty channel, 1.5 F basket) and the maximum irrigation (1 m: 58.1 ml/min, 2 m: 91.9 ml/min) were convincing. Clinically the maneuverability was very good in (13/20), good or satisfactory in (7/20). Visibility was evaluated as very good in (11/20), just in (1/20) either satisfactory or sufficient. The consistency of visibility was not affected in (19/20). In all cases there were no adverse events. The technical examination and clinical application of the disposable endoscope are of equal quality compared to reusable devices. Disposable endoscopes can be an alternative to reusable devices, but economic aspects such as reduction of repair costs, sterilization effort and additional waste must be taken into account.

A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis Comparing the VivaSight Double-Lumen Tube and a Conventional Double-Lumen Tube in Adult Patients Undergoing Thoracic Surgery Involving One-Lung Ventilation

BACKGROUND

One-lung ventilation (OLV) procedures are essential for most thoracic surgeries, and the most common method is intubation with a conventional double-lumen tube (cDLT) and bronchoscopy to verify correct tube placement.

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this study was to conduct a cost-effectiveness analysis comparing the VivaSight double-lumen tube (DL) and a cDLT for OLV procedures.

METHODS

A cost-effectiveness analysis was conducted from a healthcare sector perspective in Denmark using a decision analytic model to assess the potential effects and costs of using VivaSight-DL as an alternative to a cDLT with a reusable bronchoscope. Costs were determined using a micro-costing approach. The effectiveness measure was the number of times that fiberoptic confirmation of the tube placement during intubation or surgery was unnecessary and thus avoided. The effectiveness input was from a randomized controlled trial (n = 52). Both deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were conducted to assess the robustness of the results.

RESULTS

Fiberoptic confirmation of tube placement was only necessary in two (6.66%) procedures using VivaSight-DL. The cost of using VivaSight-DL was $US299.96 per procedure versus $US347.61 for a cDLT with a reusable bronchoscope. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was - $US51.06 per bronchoscopy avoided. The base-case analysis indicated that the use of VivaSight-DL was cost effective compared with the use of a cDLT with reusable bronchoscope. Sensitivity analyses showed that the results were robust and that VivaSight-DL was more effective and less costly.

CONCLUSION

This study suggests that VivaSight-DL is associated with cost savings and reductions in bronchoscope use to verify correct tube placement. The conclusion is based on the results from a single institution. To clarify whether VivaSight-DL is cost effective in larger or global clinical settings, further economic evaluations should be performed.

Challenges in achieving effective high-level disinfection in endoscope reprocessing

Endoscope reprocessing is often ineffective, and microbes frequently remain on endoscopes after the use of high-level disinfectants (HLDs). Several factors impact reprocessing effectiveness, including non-adherence to guidelines, use of damaged endoscopes, use of insoluble products during endoscopy, insufficient cleaning, contaminated rinse water, and inadequate drying before storage. Our team suspected that issues with HLD chemistries and monitoring could also contribute to reprocessing failures. We conducted a mixed-methods analysis of published literature, our interviews with frontline personnel, and evidence from our previous studies. The evidence showed that reusable HLDs commonly failed tests for minimum effective concentration (MEC) before their maximum usage periods. MEC tests also detected failures associated with single-use HLDs that did not fully deploy. These failures were due to product issues, process complexities, and personnel non-adherence with guidelines and manufacturer instructions. HLDs will likely continue to be used for the foreseeable future. More research is needed to assess real-world practice patterns related to the high-level disinfection step and MEC testing and to establish more realistic usage periods for reusable HLD chemistries. Manufacturers and researchers should evaluate the ability of technological solutions and engineered safeguards to overcome human error. Recognition of the need for quality improvement is growing, and infection preventionists should take action to build on this momentum and collaborate with manufacturers, endoscopists, and reprocessing personnel to improve the effectiveness of high-level disinfection.