The grasper-integrated disposable flexible cystoscope is comparable to the reusable, flexible cystoscope for the detection of bladder cancer

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 digital flexible cystoscope for double J removal versus reusable instruments: a prospective, comparative study of functionality, risk of infection, and costs

BACKGROUND

The removal of ureteral stent can be performed with disposable or reusable flexible cystoscopes, but limited comparative data are available on functionality, risk of infections, and costs.

METHODS

We performed a multicentric, prospective, observational study on patients undergoing in-office ureteral stent removal with Isiris-α® or a reusable Storz™ flexible cystoscope. Study endpoints were the functionality and effectiveness of the devices, the rate of postoperative bacteriuria and UTIs, and the costs of the procedure.

RESULTS

A total of 135 patients were included, 80 (59.2%) treated with reusable cystoscopes and 55 (40.8%) with Isiris-α®. No significant baseline differences between groups were detected. Isiris-α® outperformed the reusable device in terms of quality of vision (p 0.001), manoeuvrability (p 0.001), grasper functionality (p < 0.001), and quality of the procedure (p 0.01). Mean procedure time was shorter with Isiris-α® (p < 0.001) due to a shorter instrument preparation time (p < 0.001). No differences were found in terms of perceived patient pain (p 0.34), nor postoperative bacteriuria or symptomatic UTIs. According to our cost analysis, the in-office procedure performed with Isiris-α® was more expensive (+ 137.8€) but was independent from instrument turnover or disinfection. Among limitations of study we acknowledge the lack of randomization, the use of antibiotic prophylaxis in several patients, and the high rate of missing preoperative urine cultures.

CONCLUSIONS

Isiris-α® outperforms reusable cystoscopes for in-office ureteral stent removal in terms of total operative time and quality of the procedure, at the cost of being more expensive. No significant differences in postoperative bacteriuria or symptomatic UTIs were found.

Micro-cost analysis of single-use vs. reusable cystoscopy in a single-payer healthcare system

INTRODUCTION

Single-use flexible diagnostic cystoscopy has recently been developed with comparable functionality to reusable cystoscopes. Prior studies have demonstrated considerable upfront costs of reusable cystoscopy. The objective of this study was to compare costs of reusable cystoscopy to single-use cystoscopy in a single-payer, socialized healthcare system.

METHODS

A retrospective micro-cost analysis of reusable cystoscopy in a combined inpatient and outpatient setting at a single institution was performed. The cost analysis was divided into capital, maintenance, reprocessing, and labor. Annual costs were averaged over two fiscal years. Costs were amortized over five- and 10-year bases as appropriate. The results were compared to theoretical costs of single-use cystoscopes.

RESULTS

There were 3415 annual average cystoscopy cases with 171 cases per reusable cystoscope. The capital, maintenance, reprocessing, and labor costs of reusable cystoscopy were $96 000, $99 867, $247 855, and $65 317, respectively. The total annual costs per case for reusable and single-use cystoscopy were $149.06 and $245.57, respectively. The costs of reusable cystoscopy decreased with the number of procedures per year and intersected the costs of single-use cystoscopes at 1265 procedures per year. All costs were calculated in Canadian dollars ($CAD).

CONCLUSIONS

The cost-effectiveness of reusable cystoscopes is dependent on cystoscopy volume due to considerable upfront costs. Single-use cystoscopes are more cost-effective if the total number of cases performed is less than 1265 per year. Additional investigation into the cost-effectiveness of single-use cystoscopes as supplements in the outpatient setting or primary endoscopes in inpatient/emergency settings should be performed.

Multi-Slice Spiral Computed Tomography Image Features under Hybrid Iterative Reconstruction Algorithm in Staging Diagnosis of Bladder Cancer

Objective

This study was aimed to explore the accuracy of multi-slice spiral computed tomography (CT) scan in preoperative staging diagnosis of bladder cancer based on hybrid iterative reconstruction algorithm, so as to provide a more reasonable supporting basis for guiding clinical work in the future.

Methods

Retrospectively, 120 patients admitted to hospital from July 2019 to April 2021, who were confirmed to be with urothelial carcinoma of the bladder by pathological examination after surgical treatment, were selected. CT images before processing were set as the control group and those after processing were set as the observation group according to whether they were processed by the hybrid iterative algorithm. Postoperative pathological examination was utilized as the standard for analysis. The accuracy and consistency of the two methods were compared.

Results

The accuracy of the results of each stage of the observation group (T1 stage: 91.09%, T2 stage: 89.66%, T3 stage: 88.89%, and T4 stage: 88.89%) and consistency (T1 stage: 0.66, T2 stage: 0.69, T3 stage: 0.71, and T4 stage: 0.82) were higher than those of the control group (accuracy: T1-57.01%, T2-48.28%, T3-44.44%, and T4-44.44%). The consistency was as follows: T1-0.32, T2-0.24, T3-0.37, and T4-0.43, and the comparison was statistically significant (P < 0.05).

Conclusion

The adoption value of the image features based on the hybrid iterative reconstruction algorithm in the diagnosis of bladder cancer staging was higher than that of the conventional multi-slice spiral CT, indicating that the hybrid iterative reconstruction algorithm had a good adoption prospect in clinical examination.

Outcomes and Cost Evaluation Related to a Single-Use, Disposable Ureteric Stent Removal System: a Systematic Review of the Literature

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

To present the latest evidence related to the outcomes and cost of single-use, disposable ureteric stent removal system (Isiris).

RECENT FINDINGS

Our review suggests that compared to a reusable flexible cystoscope (re-FC), a disposable flexible cystoscope (d-FC) with built-in grasper (Isiris) significantly reduced procedural time and provided a cost benefit when the latter was used in a ward or outpatient clinic-based setting. The use of d-FC also allowed endoscopy slots to be used for other urgent diagnostic procedures. Disposable FCs are effective and safe for ureteric stent removal. They offer greater flexibility and, in most cases, have been demonstrated to be cost-effective compared to re-FCs. They are at their most useful in remote, low-volume centres, in less well-developed countries and in centres where large demand is placed on endoscopy resources.

Efficacy of the novel, innovative, single-use grasper integrated flexible cystoscope for ureteral stent removal: A systematic review

BACKGROUND

We aimed to define the published impact, efficacy, cost-effectiveness and precise role of the Isiris-α device: the world's first sterile, single-use grasper integrated flexible cystoscope (SUGIFC) for ureteral stent removal.

METHODS

After PROSPERO registration (CRD42021228755), the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines were utilized. The search terms "Grasper Integrated Flexible Cystoscope," and "Isiris," within the following databases: PubMed, Scopus, Cochrane Library, Web of Science and EMBASE were searched.

RESULTS

In this review, a cumulative total experience (10 publications) included 970 "SUGIFC" procedures (755 patients). However, only 366/970 procedures were actually used for "ureteral stent removal," with the remainder being surveillance cystoscopy only (603/970) or foreign body retrieval (1/970). Procedure-related and device failures in planned "removal of ureteral stents," was reported in 8/366 (346 patients) and 1/366 (346 patients), respectively. The cost-benefit utilizing the SUGIFC device is advantageous compared to "in-theatre" stent removals and favours less busy centres where maintenance, repair and replacement costs are more relevant. Other listed benefits include shorter stent indwelling times, shorter procedure duration, lower rates of bacteriuria and urinary tract infections, fewer emergency department visits and lower readmission rates. Technical limitations include the absence of an independent working channel, a narrower visual field and the lack of image universality since the monitor is device-specific.

CONCLUSION

The SUGIFC device needs to be outweighed against local costs and individual health systems. Its application in ambulatory ureteral stent removal may become significant due to the accessibility and convenience that it offers the attending urologist.