Comparing the Efficacy of a Multimodular Flexible Ureteroscope With Its Conventional Counterpart in the Management of Renal 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.

Single use flexible ureteroscopes: Current status and future directions

Introduction

Single use ureteroscopes are a technological innovation that have become available in the past decade and gained increased popularity. To this end, there are now an increasing number of both benchside and clinical studies reporting outcomes associated with their use. Our aim was to deliver a narrative review in order to provide an overview of this new technology.

Methods

A narrative review was performed to gain overview of the history of the technology's development, equipment specifications and to highlight potential advantages and disadvantages.

Results

Findings from preclinical studies highlight potenial advantages in terms of the design of single use ureteroscopes such as the lower weight and more recent modifications such as pressure control. However, concerns regarding plastic waste and environmental impact still remain unanswered. Clinical studies reveal them to have a non inferior status for outcomes such as stone free rate. However, the volume of evidence, especially in terms of randomised trials remains limited. From a cost perspective, study conclusions are still conflicting and centres are recommended to perform their own micro cost analyses.

Conclusions

Most clinical outcomes for single use ureteroscopes currently match those achieved by reusable ureteroscopes but the data pool is still limited. Areas of continued debate include their environmental impact and cost efficiency.

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.

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.

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.

Stone removing efficiency and safety comparison between single use ureteroscope and reusable ureteroscope: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Background

Urologists are gradually beginning to use single-use ureteroscopes (sufURSs), despite a lack of high-level evidence as to their efficacy and safety. This systematic review was registered on PROSPERO (no. CRD42020181808).

Methods

The PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library databases were searched for studies published before October 1, 2020. Jadad score tools were used to evaluate the quality of the included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) was used to evaluate the quality of the included nonrandomized studies. Two researchers independently extracted data according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) principles. A data synthesis was performed using Stata 15.0. Heterogeneity was mainly evaluated with I2 tests. In addition to funnel plots, Egger's and Begg's tests were used to detect publication bias. A sensitivity analysis was also performed. Stone-free rates and postoperative complications were the 2 primary outcomes; operation-time data were also extracted.

Results

Six studies (comprising 887 patients) containing the efficacy data and 5 studies (comprising 952 patients) containing the safety data that were finally included in the quantitative analysis. In relation to stone removal, no significant difference was found in terms of efficacy [Mantel-Haenszel statistic (M-H), relative risk (RR): 1.01, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.96-1.07, P=0.658) or safety (M-H, RR: 1.30, 95% CI: 0.96-1.75, P=0.093) between the sufURS and the reusable flexible ureteroscope (rfURS), and no significant heterogeneity was found. A publication bias was detected in the efficacy comparison; however, the trim-and-fill analysis indicated that the original synthesis results remained stable.

Conclusions

In relation to stone removal, sufURSs were found to be comparable to rfURS, and no compromising complications were found. However, the results should be treated with caution due to limitations related to the small number of studies included in the analysis.

Comparison of single-use and reusable flexible ureteroscope for renal stone management: a pooled analysis of 772 patients

Flexible ureteroscopy is a common therapy for patients with renal calculi. In recent years, the prevalence of single-use flexible ureteroscope (FURS) use has been on the rise. Thus, several trials have been conducted to compare the efficacy between single-use and reusable FURS. The aim of this meta-analysis was to systematically assess the effectiveness and safety of single-use vs. reusable FURS in treating renal stones. PubMed, Web of Science, Cochrane Library and EMBASE were researched to identify relevant studies up to September 2019. Article selection was performed through the search strategy based on Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses criteria. The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale was applied to assess the methodological quality of non-randomized controlled trials, and the methodological quality of randomized controlled trials was evaluated using the Jadad scale. A total of five studies with 772 patients were included in the meta-analysis, including two randomized controlled trials, two single-centre prospective studies, and one prospective case-control trial. The pooled results showed that single-use FURS was associated with a higher stone-free rate (SFR) (OR: 1.50; 95% CI, 1.06–2.12; P=0.02) than reusable FURS. A significant difference was noted in operative time, and single-use FURS was associated with a longer operative duration (MD: 7.39 min; 95% CI, 1.75–13.03; P=0.01). No significant difference was noted in perioperative complications (OR: 0.97; 95% CI, 0.56–1.70; P=0.92). Subgroup analysis showed no significant difference in urinary tract infection (OR: 0.80; 95% CI, 0.44–1.46; P=0.46), stent migration (OR: 0.56; 95% CI, 0.19–1.65; P=0.30) or acute kidney injury (OR: 0.76; 95% CI, 0.16–3.57; P=0.73). Single-use FURS is an effective and safe alternative to reusable FURS for the management of renal stones.

Advantages of retrograde flexible ureteroscopy in determining the etiology of painless hematuria originating from the upper urinary tract

The present study investigated the use of retrograde flexible ureteroscopy (RFU) in the discrimination of the etiology of hematuria that originates from the upper urinary tract (UUT). The present study collected retrospective data for patients who presented with hematuria and cystoscopy-detected bleeding from the UUT between June 2006 and August 2018 in Ningbo First Hospital. All patients accepted RFU to determine the etiology of hematuria. Data regarding imaging examinations, surgery, pathology and complications were also collected and analyzed. In total, 65 patients (males, 38; females, 27) with a mean age of 63 years underwent RFU to determine the etiology of hematuria originating from the UUT. Using RFU, UUT tumors were found in 29 cases. Stones, polyps and atypical hyperplasia were found in two cases, and a definite diagnosis was not found in three cases. There were 17 cases without obvious abnormalities and nine cases were unable to undergo RFU due to ureteral stenosis. In patients who could not be diagnosed by imaging examination, 34.4% (11/32) were diagnosed with urothelial carcinoma by RFU, and these results were also confirmed by postoperative pathology. In the present study, no patient had severe complications after RFU. The present results suggested RFU may be used as a sensitive method to diagnose UUT tumors (78.4%; 29/37) and has strong specificity. RFU could be performed as a routine examination for patients with hematuria from the UUT.

A comprehensive literature-based equation to compare cost-effectiveness of a flexible ureteroscopy program with single-use versus reusable devices

PURPOSE

To critically review all literature concerning the cost-effectiveness of flexible ureteroscopy comparing single-use with reusable scopes.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A systematic online literature review was performed in PubMed, Embase and Google Scholar databases. All factors potentially affecting surgical costs or clinical outcomes were considered. Prospective assessments, case control and case series studies were included.

RESULTS

741 studies were found. Of those, 18 were duplicated and 77 were not related to urology procedures. Of the remaining 646 studies, 59 were considered of relevance and selected for further analysis. Stone free and complication rates were similar between single-use and reusable scopes. Operative time was in average 20% shorter with digital scopes, single-use or not. Reusable digital scopes seem to last longer than optic ones, though scope longevity is very variable worldwide. New scopes usually last four times more than refurbished ones and single-use ureterorenoscopes have good resilience throughout long cases. Longer scope longevity is achieved with Cidex and if a dedicated nurse takes care of the sterilization process. The main surgical factors that negatively impact device longevity are lower pole pathologies, large stone burden and non-use of a ureteral access sheath. We have built a comprehensive fi nancial costeffective decision model to fl exible ureteroscope acquisition.

CONCLUSIONS

The cost-effectiveness of a fl exible ureteroscopy program is dependent of several aspects. We have developed a equation to allow a literature-based and adaptable decision model to every interested stakeholder. Disposable devices are already a reality and will progressively become the standard as manufacturing price falls.

The effect of using ureteral access sheath for treatment of impacted ureteral stones at mid-upper part with flexible ureterorenoscopy: a randomized prospective study

BACKGROUND

The number of the studies made on the efficacy of flexible ureteroscopy (FURS) with ureteral access sheath (UAS) for impacted ureteral stones is limited. The aim of our study was to compare the efficacy and reliability of FURS in treatment of mid-upper impacted ureteral stones in cases where access is used or not.

METHODS

Between January 2017 and June 2018, 131 adult patients who applied to our clinic with complaints of mid-upper impacted ureteral stones. Patients were randomized as group 1 (without UAS) and group 2 (with UAS) by means of a draw and assessed in terms of demographic features, stone size, stone localization, hydronephrosis grade, operation time, scope time, the need for additional surgery, hospitalization time and complications.

RESULTS

The mean age of the patients in group 1 was 45.01 years (19-76) and was 37.01 years (16-80) in group 2. Mean stone size was 9.04 mm2 and 9.77 mm2 in group 1 and 2, respectively. Additional treatment was required for 26 (42.6%) patients in group 1 and 8 (11.4%) in group 2. No major intraoperative and postoperative complications developed in both groups. Although bleeding as a postoperative complication rate was similar, fever (>38° C) and urinary tract infection were higher in group 1 than in group 2.

CONCLUSIONS

In the treatment of mid-upper impacted ureteral stones, using UAS during the application of FURS is an advantageous procedure due to shorter operation time, fever intraoperative stone migrations and the need for additional surgery, less postoperative infection.

Flexible ureteroscopic holmium laser lithotripsy with PolyScope for senile patients with renal calculi

The present study reported the clinical experience of using a PolyScope with holmium laser lithotripter in managing renal calculi in senile patients. Between December 2013 and December 2016, 157 senile patients (69.1±6.1 years old) were treated with PolyScope holmium laser lithotripsy for renal calculi at Xin Hua Hospital (Shanghai, China). The mean stone digitized surface area was 154.2±57.7 mm² (range, 55.8–478.3 mm²). A thorough medical history investigation, and laboratory and radiological examination were followed by proper preoperative management. The PolyScope was then passed into the renal cavities following the position of the ureteral access sheath, with laser energy maintained at 1.0–2.0 J, frequency 10–15 Hz. The demographical and operative information of senile patients were compared with that of the 332 non-senile patients operated at the same period time. The average operative time was 54.6±13.2 min (range, 37–124 min). No major complications, including ureteral perforation or sepsis were encountered. The single session stone-free rate (SFR) was 81.5% and the overall SFR was 89.2%, similar to that of the non-senile group. PolyScope combined with holmium laser lithotripter is safe and effective in managing renal calculi in senile patients compared with non-senile patients, with considerately high SFRs and low complication rates.

The application of a single-use fiberoptic flexible ureteroscope for the management of upper urinary calculi

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the clinical outcomes with a Chinese single-use fiberoptic flexible ureteroscope (YouCare Tech) from a prospective database.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A prospective study was conducted in a single center in China between January 2016 and October 2017. All consecutive patients who underwent flexible ureteroscopy performed by YouCare flexible ureteroscope were analyzed. Patients' demographics, clinical characteristics, intraoperative parameters, postoperative complications, and stone-free rate were evaluated and recorded. Stone-free status was defined as no visible stones or clinically insignificant residual stones < 2 mm on a postoperative image study.

RESULTS

A total of 684 procedures were performed for 653 patients (31 patients had bilateral stones). A double J stent had been previously placed in 431 patients. The location of the calculi was upper calyx, middle calyx, lower calyx, and renal pelvis and proximal ureter in 74, 101, 211, 115, and 183 patients, respectively. The median operative time was 52 min. The postoperative stone-free rate for the first 2 weeks after surgery was 78.5%, which increased to 91.1% at the first month. The overall stone-free rate was 95.2%. The complication rate was minor and short-term, such as gross hematuria or flank pain.

CONCLUSION

YouCare flexible ureteroscope can be considered effective and safe in the treatment of both upper ureteral and renal stones in selected patients. Further evaluation of comparison with other FURS's surgical outcomes and cost-effectiveness analysis will help to present the best utility of this single-use FURS in clinical practice.

Efficacy analysis of self-help position therapy after holmium laser lithotripsy via flexible ureteroscopy

BACKGROUND

To observe the efficacy of self-help position therapy (SHPT) after holmium laser lithotripsy via flexible ureteroscopy (FURS).

METHODS

From January 2010 to November 2015, 736 nephrolithiasis patients who had received FURS lithotripsy were analyzed retrospectively. In position group, 220 cases accepted SHPT after lithotripsies, and 428 cases as control, coming from another independent inpatient area in the same center. The stone-free status (SFS) between two groups were compared at the 2nd, 4th and 12th week ends by X-ray examinations.

RESULTS

The preoperative incidence of hydronephrosis (25.9% vs. 18.0%, p = 0.018) or lower calyceal seeper (33.6% vs. 24.3%, p = 0.012) and the proportion of patients with > 2.0 cm stones (33.6% vs. 24.3%, p = 0.003) were all significantly higher in position group than in control group. There were no substantial difference between two groups in age, BMI, gender and medical histories. In postoperative followup, the incidence of hydronephrosis in position group was significantly lower than in control group (9.5% vs. 15.7%, p = 0.032) after removing double-J stents. In position group, the SFS of the 2nd week end (60.9% vs. 47.2%, p = 0.001), the 4th week end (74.1% vs. 62.8%, p = 0.004) and the 12th week end (86.9% vs. 79.4%, p = 0.021) were all significantly higher than those in control group.

CONCLUSIONS

SHPT after holmium laser lithotripsy via FURS may increase postoperative SFS, accelerate stone fragment clearance, and decrease the incidence of hydronephrosis after removal of double-J stents. The therapy does not require professional assistance and is economical, simple, and effective.

Single use and disposable flexible ureteroscopes

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Flexible ureteroscopy has been widely developed in the last decade been nowadays one of the first line treatment options for urolithiasis and conservative management for upper tract urothelial tumors. Even though some unfavorable features of the reusable flexible scopes can limit the surgical procedure such as their availability, lack of sterilization or costly repairs. Disposable scopes have been developed with the intention of improving such problems.

RECENT FINDINGS

To our knowledge, seven devices have been developed. Of the scopes features, size, deflection, image quality and ergonomic handling have to be at least as good as reusable ones as they are expected to be noninferior. Three devices match all the features of reusable scopes, although only one has been properly studied.

SUMMARY

Not all the available disposable devices have been properly studied or compared with standard scopes. Although some devices are promising more studies are needed to proof their benefits.

Single-use flexible ureteropyeloscopy: a systematic review

PURPOSE

Data assessing the effectiveness of single-use flexible ureteropyeloscopy (FURS) are limited. This study evaluates and compares single-use FURS with conventional reusable FURS.

METHODS

A systematic search using electronic databases (Pubmed and Embase) was performed for studies evaluating single-use FURS in the setting of urinary tract stone disease. Outcome measures included a comparative evaluation of their mechanical, optical and clinical outcomes.

RESULTS

Eleven studies on 466 patients met inclusion criteria. In vitro comparative data were available on three single-use flexible ureteropyeloscopes (LithoVue™, Polyscope™ and SemiFlex™) and clinical data were available on two (LithoVue™ and Polyscope™). The overall stone-free rate and complication rate associated with single-use FURS was 87 ± 15% and 9.3 ± 9%, respectively. There were no significant differences in procedure duration, stone size, stone clearance and complication rates when single-use FURS and reusable FURS were compared (duration: 73 ± 27 versus 74 ± 13 min, p = 0.99; stone size: 1.36 ± 0.2 versus 1.34 ± 0.18 cm, p = 0.93; stone-free rate: 77.8 ± 18 versus 68.5 ± 33%, p = 0.76; complication rate 15.3 ± 10.6 versus 15 ± 1.6%, p = 0.3).

CONCLUSIONS

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

First clinical evaluation of a new single-use flexible ureteroscope (LithoVue™): a European prospective multicentric feasibility study

INTRODUCTION

We evaluated a new digital single-use flexible ureteroscope, LithoVue™ with respect to deflection, image quality and maneuverability.

METHODS

A prospective cohort study was conducted in eight tertiary reference centers in Europe in December 2015 and January 2016. All consecutive patients included underwent flexible ureteroscopy and were 18 years or older. Deflection and image quality pre- and post-use and maneuverability were rated with a Likert scale.

RESULTS

A total of 40 procedures were performed (five per institution). The indication for FURS was treatment of renal stones in 92.5 % of the cases. Before LithoVue™ usage, the median measured upward and downward deflections were both 270°. Image quality was rated as "very good" in 65 % of cases and "good" in 30 %. Maneuverability was "very good" in 77.5 % and "good" in 17.5 %. At the final evaluation, median upward and downward deflections were both 270°. Image quality was still "very good" in 65 % of cases and "good" in 30 % with no significant difference compared with preoperative data (p = 1). Maneuverability was "very good" in 72.5 % and "good" in 17.5 %, with no significant difference compared with preoperative data (p = 0.92). Two LithoVue™ broke during surgery (5 %): one occurring in extreme deflection with acute infundibulopelvic angle and spontaneous loss of vision for the second one.

CONCLUSION

The LithoVue™ displayed good image quality, active deflection and maneuverability. Further evaluation of surgical outcomes and cost analysis will help to present the best utility of this single-use FURS in current practice.