Disposable Ureteroscopes in Urology: Current State and Future Prospects

The efficacy and safety of three different single-use ureteroscopes in retrograde intrarenal surgery: a comparative analysis of a single surgeon's experience in a single center

PURPOSE

To evaluate and compare the clinical results of different single-use flexible ureteroscopes (su-fURS) used in retrograde intrarenal surgery (RIRS).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

RIRS cases performed identically by an experienced surgeon between 2022 and 2023 in a single center were retrospectively analyzed. These surgeries were performed with three su-fURS (Redpine RP-U-C12, Hugemed HU30, and Pusen Uscope 3022 A). In the study, the age, gender, body mass index, and Charlson comorbidity index of the patients were compared, along with their clinical details, such as the stone size, volume, density, location, and history of hydronephrosis or a double J stent or SWL. Operation time, stone-free rates (SFR), perioperative and postoperative complications, and hospitalization times were also compared.

RESULTS

The study included 208 patients. Pusen had 63 cases, Hugemed had 62, and Redpine had 83. The comparison of the patient's demographic and clinical properties with stone-related variables was similar between the groups. The SFR was similar between the groups (p = 0.056). Perioperative, postoperative, and total complication rates and the need for a second intervention showed no significant differences among the three groups (p = 0.324, 0.088, 0.061, and 0.052, respectively).

CONCLUSION

In the first study comparing the clinical results of cases in which different su-fURS were used, no difference was observed in surgical outcomes and complications, even though the technical features of these devices were different. Urologists should select su-fURS based on clinical requirements, financial constraints, and personal experiences.

How we can reduce the environmental impact of our operating theatres: a narrative review

Climate change is projected to become the leading cause of adverse health outcomes globally, and the healthcare system is a key contributor. Surgical theatres are three to six times more pollutant than other hospital areas, and produce anywhere from a fifth to a third of total hospital waste. Hospitals are increasingly expected to make operating theatres more sustainable, however guidelines to improve environmental sustainability are lacking, and previous research takes a narrow approach to operative sustainability. This paper presents a narrative review that, following a 'review of reviews' approach, aims to summarize the key recommendations to improve the environmental sustainability of surgical theatres. Key domains of discussion identified across the literature included minimisation of volatile anaesthetics, reduction of operating theatre power consumption, optimisation of surgical approach, re-use and re-processing of surgical instruments, waste management, and research, education and leadership. Implementation of individual items in these domains has seen significant reductions in the environmental impact of operative practice. This comprehensive summary of recommendations lays the framework from which providers can assess the sustainability of their practice and for the development of encompassing guidelines to build an environmentally sustainable surgical service.

Single-Use Flexible Ureteroscopes: How Difficult Is It Today to Stay Up to Date? A Pictorial Review of Instruments Available in Europe in 2023

The invention of the flexible ureteroscope (fURS) and its subsequent spread have revolutionized the surgical management of urolithiasis and upper tract urothelial carcinoma (UTUC). During the last few years, single-use flexible ureteroscopes (su-fURSs) have been developed to improve the limitations of reusable fURSs, namely their cost, durability and risk of device contamination. Since the introduction of the first fully disposable digital fURS, several su-fURSs have been developed by various manufacturers. In this pictorial review, we combined the different physical and technical features of su-fURSs currently available on the market with Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and European Conformity (CE) approval, in order to help surgeons choose the appropriate device according to each case requirement and personal preferences. To the best of our knowledge, 17 su-fURSs with CE and FDA approval have been developed to date.

Prospective Randomized Trial of Single-Use vs Reusable Cystoscope for Ureteral Stent Removal

Background: Reusable cystoscopes are associated with risks of cross-contamination, need for chemical reprocessing, mechanical breakdown, maintenance costs, and labor for cleaning. A sterile, single-use cystoscope may reduce or eliminate the source of these infections while also decreasing exposure to reprocessing chemical agents. In this multicenter, randomized trial, we sought to compare single use with reusable endoscopes for ureteral stent removal. Methods: A three-center, randomized, dual-arm postmarket clinical trial was performed to compare the single-use cystoscope (Ambu A/S) with standard-of-care flexible reusable cystoscopes for outpatient ureteral stent removal. A total of 102 patients were randomized and evaluated from baseline through day 10 postprocedure. Primary endpoint was successful stent removal. Secondary endpoints were time from preparation to disposal/reprocessing, adverse events (AEs), and clinician satisfaction. Results: A total of 102 subjects were randomized in a 1:1 manner. The successful stent removal rate was 51/51 (reusable) and 50/51 (single use). One patient required the conversion to reusable cystoscope owing to grasper passage issue. Median time from prep for the procedure to disposal/prep for reprocessing was 10.2 minutes for the single use and 18.4 minutes for the reusable (p < 0.001). There was no difference in clinician satisfaction between both arms. There was no difference in AEs between arms and no device causal attribution for any AE reports. There was one serious AE necessitating hospitalization for infection in the reusable arm. Conclusion: The randomized-controlled trial of single-use cystoscopes vs reusables showed comparable device success with significant time savings for single use and equivalent clinician satisfaction. The study was registered on clinicaltrials.gov database (NCT04829461) on April 2, 2021.

Ureteroscopy and Shock Wave Lithotripsy Trends from 2012 to 2019 Within the US Medicare Dataset: Sharp Growth in Ureteroscopy Utilization

Introduction and Objective: Both ureteroscopy (URS) and shock wave lithotripsy (SWL) are cornerstones in the surgical management of urolithiasis in the United States. We hypothesized that URS utilization outpaced SWL utilization in recent years and quantified the magnitude of change over time for caseloads of URS and SWL among urologists from a national Medicare database. Methods: Using the public "Medicare Physician & Other Practitioners" database (https://data.cms.gov), we determined case numbers of SWL (current procedural terminology [CPT] 50590) and URS (CPT 52356 or 52353) from 2012 to 2019. In a subanalysis, we identified "high-volume stone urologists" as those in the upper quartile of case numbers for both SWL and URS in baseline years of either 2012 or 2013 and trended their caseload from 2012 to 2019. Linear estimation models assessed annual rates of change and their statistical significance. Results: In 2012, urologists performed 41,135 SWL procedures vs 21,184 URS. URS overtook SWL in 2017 and by 2019 was the dominant modality (60,063 URS vs 43,635 SWL). Between 2012 and 2019, total URS cases annually increased by 5700 (15%/year, p < 0.001), while the number of SWL cases peaked in 2015 and has since declined on average -1.6%/year (p = 0.020). The number of urologists performing URS steadily rose from 1147 in 2012 to 2809 in 2019, reflecting an additional 246 urologists (21%/year) performing URS annually. The caseload of high-volume stone urologists showed similar trends with average URS cases increasing by 2.9/year/urologist (9.8%/year, p < 0.001) and average SWL cases declining by 0.9/year/urologist (-1.7%/year, p = 0.023). Conclusions: URS utilization has increased dramatically and outpaced SWL utilization from 2012 to 2019 within the Medicare population. URS was increasingly used by both the general urologist population and high-volume stone urologists while SWL utilization has begun to decline.

Paediatric kidney stone surgery: state-of-the-art review

While urolithiasis in children is rare, the global incidence is rising, and the volume of minimally invasive surgeries being performed reflects this. There have been many developments in the technology, which have supported the advancement of these interventions. However, innovation of this kind has also resulted in wide-ranging practice patterns and debate regarding how they should be best implemented. This is in addition to the extra challenges faced when treating stone disease in children where the patient population often has a higher number of comorbidities and for example, the need to avoid risk such as ionising exposure is higher. The overall result is a number of challenges and controversies surrounding many facets of paediatric stone surgery such as imaging choice, follow-up and different treatment options, for example, medical expulsive therapy, shockwave lithotripsy, ureteroscopy, and percutaneous nephrolithotomy. This article provides an overview of the current status of paediatric stone surgery and discussion on the key topics of debate.