A Prospective Case-Control Study Comparing LithoVue, a Single-Use, Flexible Disposable Ureteroscope, with Flexible, Reusable Fiber-Optic Ureteroscopes

In vitro Comparison of the Mechanical and Optical Characteristics of 5 Disposable Flexible Ureteroscopes

INTRODUCTION

Disposable (single-use) flexible ureteroscopes are alternatives to reusable ureteroscopes. With their superior surgical efficacy and safety in the presence of upper urinary calculi, disposable ureteroscopes aim to overcome the main limitations of conventional reusable ureteroscopes. However, studies on the performance of the most recently developed models of single-use flexible ureteroscopes are scarce. This study aimed to compare the in vitro performance of several recently introduced, single-use, flexible ureteroscopes.

METHODS

Five disposable flexible ureteroscopes were tested in vitro to evaluate their mechanical and optical characteristics. To this end, their degrees of deflection, irrigation flow rates, and image qualities were investigated. The models examined were Innovex US31-B12, OTU-100RR, Redpine RP-U-C12, Sciavita SUV-2A-B, and Seplou URS3016E. Their performance was also compared with that of a reusable flexible ureteroscope, Olympus URV-F.

RESULTS

The OTU device had the highest degrees of deflection and the smallest loop diameter of the disposable ureteroscopes. The single-use ureteroscopes had identical image resolutions at a distance of 1 cm. The Innovex and Redpine devices had the best color representation.

CONCLUSIONS

Of the tested disposable ureteroscopes, the OTU device had the best mechanical attributes, given its small loop diameter, high deflection angles, and low irrigation flow loss. As to their optical properties, the resolutions of all 5 single-use models were identical at an image distance of 1 cm.

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.

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.

Reuse and Reprocessing of Endoscopic Instruments: For

Reusable endoscopes appear to be most environmentally sustainable when the carbon footprint of routine device maintenance is optimized. Single-use endoscopes may offer cost-savings in clinical settings that accelerate device damage, such as prolonged procedure time or complex patient anatomy. For many urology practices, a hybrid approach that integrates single-use and reusable devices may be most economically sensible and environmentally sound.

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

PURPOSE

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

Comparison of single-use flexible ureteroscopes with a reusable ureteroscope for the management of paediatric urolithiasis

INTRODUCTION

To compare the efficacy, side effects, and cost-effectiveness between a single-use digital flexible ureteroscope and a reusable flexible ureteroscope in the treatment of paediatric renal stones.

METHODS

This analytic, case-control, monocentric study included all patients undergoing flexible ureterosopies for stone treatment. Between April 2016 and February 2019, a reusable (Flex-X^C®, Karl Storz) flexible ureteroscope was used (control group), whereas a single-use (Uscope®, PUSEN Medical©) flexible ureteroscope was used in all procedures from March 2019 to April 2021. Clinical and procedural outcomes, operative times, complication rates, hospital stay, and costs per procedure were evaluated.

RESULTS

Forty-three cases using a reusable flexible ureteroscope and thirty-nine using a single-use flexible ureteroscope were included in the study. Demographic patient characteristics, stone burden, location and composition, preoperative presence of a double-J stent, procedural outcomes, mean length of postoperative hospital stay, and complications (4.6% versus 5%, p = 0.81) were comparable between the two groups. Median operative duration for stone removal was 93 min (20-170) with reusable versus 81 min (55-107) with the single-use scope (p = 0.18). Scope failure occurred four times with the reusable scope and in no case with the single-use. The total cost per procedure associated with the use of single-use scopes (798 Euros) was lower than a reusable scope (1483.23 Euros).

DISCUSSION

Single-use flexible ureteroscopes were created to bypass the problems incurred when reusable scopes were damaged and therefore not available for use in surgical procedures. Single-use flexible ureteroscopes are always immediately available and ready to be used, even in urgent cases, as they typically do not require maintenance or sterilization. Compared with their reusable counterparts, single-use flexible ureteroscopes have similar digital performance (270°), image quality and we found no difference in the success and complication rates. Cost analysis of a reusable flexible ureteroscope must consider the purchase price, maintenance and repair costs, and decontamination costs (including handling, detergent, bacterial culture, transportation, and storage costs). In contrast, only purchase price is included in cost analysis for single-use flexible ureteroscopes. Our study suggests that single-use flexible ureteroscopes may be associated with lower costs per procedure than their reusable counterparts.

CONCLUSION

Single-use flexible ureteroscopes are an interesting alternative to their reusable counterparts, particularly in terms of material resource management. Cost analyses conducted using a low volume of cases representative of a paediatric urology division favour the use of single-use ureteroscopes.

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.

Single-use flexible ureteroscopes: Comparative in vitro analysis of four scopes

Objective

Single-use flexible ureteroscopes (fURSs) have recently been introduced by different companies. Goal of this in-vitro study was to compare four fURSs.

Methods

We performed in vitro analysis of Uscope 7.5 Fr and Uscope 9.5 Fr (Pusen Ltd., Zhuhai, China), LithoVue 9.5 Fr (LithoVue™, Boston Scientific, MA, USA), and Indoscope 9.5 Fr (Bioradmedisys™, Pune, India). Optical characteristics (image resolution, color representation, and luminosity) were compared at various distances of 10 mm, 20 mm, and 50 mm. Deflection and irrigation were evaluated with and without accessories.

Results

Color perception was comparable for all scopes at 10 mm (p<0.05), while Lithovue 9.5 Fr was comparable with Indoscope 9.5 Fr at the distances of 20 mm and 50 mm. Both scopes were statistically better than both Uscopes at the distances of 20 mm and 50 mm. Image resolution powers were comparable amongst all fURSs at the distances of 10 mm and 20 mm (3.56 line pairs per millimeter [lp/mm]). However, Indoscope (3.56 lp/mm) was superior to LithoVue and Uscope scopes (3.17 lp/mm) at the distance of 50 mm. Luminosity at the distance of 10 mm was comparable for LithoVue and Uscope 9.5 Fr. However, at the distances of 20 mm and 50 mm, LithoVue had the highest luminosity while Uscope 7.5 Fr had the lowest one. Indoscope had lower luminosity than other 9.5 Fr scopes at all distances. With empty working channel and 200 μm laser fiber, Indoscope had the maximum deflection (285°). With basket, Uscope 7.5 Fr had the maximum loss of deflection (30°) while Indoscope had no deflection loss. With empty working channel, all scopes had comparable irrigation flow rates in both deflected and undeflected state. Similarly, with 200 μm laser or basket, irrigation flow rates were comparable in all scopes.

Conclusion

Color representation was equivalent for Indoscope and LithoVue, while being better than Uscope 7.5 Fr and Uscope 9.5 Fr. Image resolution was comparable in all scopes at the distances of 10 mm and 20 mm. Beyond the distance of 10 mm, luminosity of LithoVue was the highest and that of Uscope 7.5 Fr was the lowest. Deflection loss was the minimum with Indoscope and the maximum with 7.5 Fr Uscope. Under all scenarios, irrigation flow rates were comparable in all scopes.

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.

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.

Cost-Effectiveness of 90-Day Single-Use Flexible Cystoscope Trial: Single Center Micro-Costing Analysis and User Satisfaction

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate cost-effectiveness and user satisfaction of a single-use flexible cystoscope at a tertiary care center we conducted a 90-day trial. Single-use flexible cystoscope advancements have introduced alternative options to reusable scopes. However, there is a paucity of cost-effectiveness and provider satisfaction studies examining the implementation of a hospital-based transition to single-use cystoscopes.

METHODS

Following institutional device-approval we initiated a 90-Day trial period (November 1, 2020 - January 29, 2021) where all flexible, transurethral, and percutaneous, urologic care was provided with a disposable AMBU® aScope^TM. We performed a micro-costing analysis examining payor per case cost of the reusable flexible cystoscope (including servicing & processing) to the disposable units. Provider surveys assessed visual quality, deflection, ease of working channel and overall satisfaction on a 10-point Likert scale.

RESULTS

Over the 90-day period, we encountered 84 cases (78 operative, 5 inpatient, 1 emergency department (ED)) where flexible cystoscopy was required. One disposable flexible cystoscope was successfully used in 78/84 (93%) cases. Of the 6 failures, 2 were due to an inability to access a disposable scope/monitor. Per use cost of the reusable flexible cystoscope at our center was $272.41 versus $185.00 for the single use. Extrapolating our average case volume and conservative failure rate (3 single use failures/month, requiring reusable), transitioning to predominately single use scopes results in $39,142.84 annual cost savings.

CONCLUSIONS

This single center 90-Day trial of disposable flexible cystoscopy identified per-use costs to be less when a single-use flexible cystoscope was utilized at a high-volume tertiary care center.

Single-Use vs. Reusable Digital Flexible Ureteroscope to Treat Upper Urinary Calculi: A Propensity-Score Matching Analysis

Objective: The purpose of this research was to compare the treatment outcomes and costs of a single-use and reusable digital flexible ureteroscope for upper urinary calculi.

Methods: Four hundred forty patients with reusable digital flexible ureteroscope and 151 patients with single-use flexible digital ureteroscope were included in this study. Through exclusion and inclusion criteria and 1:1 propensity-score matching analysis based on baseline characteristics, ultimately, 238 patients (119:119) were compared in terms of treatment outcomes. The cost analysis was based on the costs of purchase, repair, and reprocessing divided by the number of all procedures in each group (450 procedures with reusable digital flexible ureteroscope and 160 procedures with single-use digital flexible ureteroscope).

Results: There was no statistical significance in mean operation time (P = 0.666). The single-use digital flexible ureteroscope group has a shorter mean length of hospital stay than the reusable digital flexible ureteroscope group (P = 0.026). And the two groups have a similar incidence of postoperative complications (P = 0.678). No significant difference was observed in the final stone-free rate (P = 0.599) and the probability of secondary lithotripsy (P = 0.811) between the two groups. After 275 procedures, the total costs of a single-use flexible ureteroscope would exceed the reusable flexible ureteroscope.

Conclusion: Our data demonstrated that the single-use digital flexible ureteroscope is an alternative to reusable digital flexible ureteroscopy in terms of surgical efficacy and safety for upper urinary calculi. In terms of the economics of the two types of equipment, institutions should consider their financial situation, the number of FURS procedures, the volume of the patient's calculus, surgeon experience, and local dealerships' annual maintenance contract when making the choice.

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 of pre- and post-surgical images of reusable and single use flexible ureteroscopes: a qualitative analysis

Introduction

Given the fragility of reusable ureterorenoscopes, many single use instruments have appeared on the market. Unfortunately, reuse of these scopes occurs in undeveloped countries in order to cut costs. This raises safety concerns for the patient.

The aim of this article was to macroscopically evaluate the changes that single use flexible ureterorenoscopes (su-fURS) suffer after a retrograde intrarenal surgery (RIRS), and to compare them to reusable fURS.

Material and methods

Pre and post-operative images of the instruments used in 23 RIRS were obtained. All the cases had renal calculi of the inferior calix between 10–15 mm, and all of them were treated with Holmium laser. The ureterorenoscopes used were: Storz^® Flex X2, Storz^® Flex XC, Pusen^® 3022, OTU^® Wiscope, AnQIng^® Innovex and Boston Scientific^® LithoVue. Qualitative comparisons of these were made.

Results

After su-fURS usage, significant damage was observed, especially on the distal tip. Deflection was not compromised. Reusable fURS did not sustain any damage after their use.

Conclusions

fURS are delicate equipment, especially if they are of single use. The considerable damage sustained by single use scopes could mean that reuse of these instruments is dangerous and should be avoided.

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.

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

PURPOSE

The primary aim of this study to comparison of reusable and disposable flexible ureterorenoscope (fURS) efficiency in lower pole renal stone disease management. In addition, the secondary goal of this study was to evaluate the factors affecting stone-free rates (SFR) in lower pole stones.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A prospective case-control study utilizing data from 122 consecutive ureteroscopic cases. The patients were divided into two groups according to the ureterorenoscope employed in the surgical intervention as disposable fURS (Group1, n:52) and reusable fURS (Group 2, n:70). Demographic characteristics, stone size, infundibulopelvic angle (IPA), SFR, hospitalization time, intraoperative complication rate (CR), operative time, preoperative or postoperative JJ stenting, and postoperative CR were analyzed.

RESULTS

There was no statistical difference between the demographic and renal stone-related data between the groups. Likewise, no difference is observed in term of intraoperative and postoperative outcomes such as fluoroscopy time, CR, and hospitalization time between the groups. Although SFR was higher in the disposable fURS group, there was no difference statistically. However, the operative time was longer in reusable fURS Group (47.02 ± 9.91 min in Group 1, and it was 57.97 ± 14.28 in Group 2) (p: 0.001). The multivariate regression analysis result to evaluate the factors of effect to operative time; the use of disposable fURS was associated with a 10.95-min decrease in procedure duration (p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Disposable fURS and reusable fURS have similar clinical efficiency and complication rates in the treatment of lower calyceal stones with RIRS. Nevertheless, disposable fURS is a useful treatment option for increased stone volume due to the advantages such as shorter operative time.

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.

Advanced ureteroscopic techniques for the management of kidney stones

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Recent years witnessed significant changes in the endourological management of renal tones because of the development of new, more advanced instruments. Retrograde intrarenal surgery (RIRS) has gained particular advantage from such technological progress and now tends to be considered the gold standard treatment for uncomplicated less than 20 mm renal stones. Using a step-by-step approach, this review aims to highlight current achievements but also unsolved problems in RIRS.

RECENT FINDINGS

Several technical details of RIRS, including preoperative stenting, use of ureteral access sheets, lithotripsy method, and renal drainage, remain open to discussion and linked to surgeon's preference. Moreover, there is a wide range of variation in efficacy and safety data, with major complications being episodic but often under-reported.

SUMMARY

RIRS has gained increased popularity among the urological community. This is certainly because of the continuous technological advancements, which have continuously improved the RIRS performance but also to the perception of ease and safety of this procedure when compared with the other available treatment modalities, particularly percutaneous nephrolitotomy. Indeed, the reported advances in RIRS technique have significantly improved the outcomes of this procedure but care should be taken not to underestimate its potential challenges.

Reusable, Single-Use, or Both: A Cost Efficiency Analysis of Flexible Ureterorenoscopes After 983 Cases

Objectives: To determine which flexible ureterorenoscopy program would be most cost-efficient in our center, a cost efficiency analysis and a formula to assess cost efficiency feasibility of a hybrid model were performed. Methods: Total cost per case of reusable flexible ureterorenoscopes (rfURS) was retrospectively calculated and compared with two single-use flexible ureterorenoscopes (sufURS) marketed. A mathematical formula was developed from our data to identify the necessary increase of use of rfURS (NIU-rfURS) to be cost-efficient in a hybrid system utilizing sufURS for only high-risk-of-breakage cases. Results: In 57 months, 983 procedures were performed using 4 digital rfURS (Flex-XC; Storz), necessitating 45 repairs, with a total repair cost of €256.809. Including the capital investment of €24.000 per scope and €60 per sterilization cycle, the cost per case averaged €419 after 983 cases. Consistently using sufURS would have cost 55% to 127% more (respectively, Uscope PU3022^® and Lithovue^® at €650 and €950 manufacturer suggested retail price). On a per case analysis, the cost was initially extremely high, but declined to reach a plateau around €480 after ∼400 cases. After 155 or 274 procedures, a rfURS program appeared more cost-efficient than consistently using Lithovue or Uscope PU3022, respectively. Based on our data and formula, if we would hypothetically use Uscope PU3022 or Lithovue for 15% of the cases, the NIU-rfURS is, respectively, 28% or 74% (∼6 or 16 cases). The NIU-rfURS increases exponentially with an increased use of sufURS. Conclusion: Consistently using rfURS is more cost-efficient than the constant use of sufURS after 155 to 274 cases. We describe the first mathematical formula that allows a calculation and feasibility assessment of using both reusable and disposable fURS. To identify whether a hybrid system may be a feasible cost-efficient alternative to a rfURS-only program, any center can calculate the NIU-rfURS by entering center-specific data in the formula.

Initial experience with slimmest single-use flexible ureteroscope Uscope PU3033A (PUSEN™) in retrograde intrarenal surgery and its comparison with Uscope PU3022a: a single-center prospective study

PURPOSE

Single-use disposable digital flexible ureterorenoscope has become an attractive option to reusable scope with many advantages. Currently available single-use digital fURS have outer shaft diameter above 9 Fr which requires large access sheath insertion and sometimes double J stent placement. Recently, 7.5 Fr single-use digital fURS is introduced in market by Pusen. Objective of this study is to compare two Pusen single-use scopes in the clinical setting: 7.5 Fr Uscope PU3033A and 9.5 Fr Uscope PU3022A.

METHODS

30 patients, having renal stones < 2 cm, planned for RIRS were prospectively randomized to two groups: group 1 had 15 patients in which 7.5 Fr Uscope PU3033A and group 2 had 15 patients in which 9.5 Fr Uscope PU3022A was used. The various pre-operative, intra-operative, and post-operative parameters at 1 month along with complications were evaluated for both the scopes by a single surgical team.

RESULTS

Pre-operative parameters including stone characteristics were comparable in both the groups. Three patients in group 2 needed ureteric dilatation prior to 11/13 access sheath insertion, while 10/12 Fr access sheath was placed in all patients in group 1 without manipulation (p = 0.06). Intra-operative vision was comparable in both scopes with an empty working channel and with laser. Hazy vision while lasing in two and one patient in group 1 and group 2, respectively (p = 0.54). In group 1, one had fever and UTI, while in group 2, one had fever post-operatively.

CONCLUSION

7.5 Fr Uscope PU3033A could be introduced with smaller access sheath. The vision, deflection, maneuverability is comparable to 9.5 Fr Uscope PU3022a.

Market Readiness for Single-Use Cystoscopes According to Urologists and Procurement Managers Worldwide

PURPOSE

Single-use endoscopes have been subjected to increase awareness in recent years, and several new single-use cystoscopes (eg Ambu® aScope 4 Cysto) have entered the market. However, the market readiness for such single-use cystoscopes remains unknown. This study investigates the worldwide market readiness for single-use cystoscopes among urologists and procurement managers (PMs) from Europe, Japan, and the US.

MATERIALS AND METHOD

An online survey using QuestionPro® was distributed to urologists and PMs in France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Spain, the UK, and the US between March 10, 2020 and July 14, 2020. All surveys were translated into the respective local language. Statistical analyses were performed using the software package Stata/SE version 16.1, StataCorp. Fisher's exact test was used to analyze categorical variables and simple linear regression was applied to continuous variables.

RESULTS

A total of 415 urologists and PMs completed the survey (343 [82.7%] urologists and 72 [17.3%] PMs). Seventy (16.9%) were from Japan, 100 (24.1%) were from the US, and 245 (59.0%) were evenly distributed across the following European countries: France, Germany, Italy, Spain, and the UK. On average, respondents indicated that they would consider converting to single-use in 44.5% of their cystoscopy procedures. Respondents anticipated significantly higher conversion (p<0.05) when they (1) used single-use ureteroscopes in their department, (2) were concerned about cystoscopy-related infection as a result of contaminated cystoscopes, (3) were members of their institution's value committee, or (4) considered cost-transparency to be important when purchasing cystoscopes.

CONCLUSION

This study investigated the marked readiness for single-use cystoscopes according to urologists and PMs worldwide. Respondents indicated a willingness to convert to single-use cystoscopes in nearly half (44.5%) of their cystoscopy procedures. Respondents that were concerned about cystoscopy-related infections as a result of contaminated cystoscopes indicated a significantly higher anticipated conversion rate (p<0.05).

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Retained Digital Flexible Ureteroscope During Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy

Background: During percutaneous nephrolithotomy, retrograde flexible ureteroscopy can be utilized to facilitate repositioning of stones, enable direct vision percutaneous access, minimize radiation exposure, reduce operating times, and improve stone-free rates. Although advancements in technique and flexible ureteroscope technology for the past decades have rendered complications rare, herein we report a case of a retained ureteroscope during percutaneous nephrolithotomy that was effectively managed endoscopically. Case Presentation: A 59-year-old Caucasian gentleman with a history of recurrent bilateral nephrolithiasis presents for a left-sided percutaneous nephrolithotomy for a large stone burden >4 cm. A ureteral access sheath was used and retrograde ureteroscopy was performed to first reposition several stones into the renal pelvis. During manipulation, we were unexpectedly unable to retract the ureteroscope from the access sheath. We describe procedural details leading up to the event and subsequent intraoperative management using an antegrade approach. Conclusion: A retained flexible ureteroscope is a rare but serious intraoperative complication that may require invasive open surgical management. However, careful endoscopic management may be feasible in select cases, allowing for preservation of ureter and instrument.

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.

LithoVue™ for renal stone therapy - a perfect fit for high volume academic centers; a retrospective evaluation of 108 cases

Background

Over the last few years the number of flexible ureterorenoscopies, used for renal stone treatment, has risen steadily. This was associated with an increase in costs for maintenance and repair of the fragile ureterorenoscopes used. To overcome this problem single-use devices have been introduced to the market. The aim of this study was to assess surgical outcome and workability for LithoVue™, a single-use flexible ureterorenoscope.

Methods

We retrospectively analyzed all flexible ureterorenoscopies performed at our department between January and October 2017. We included a total of 108 interventions for renal stone therapy, all performed using the single-use device LithoVue™. We assessed patients’ characteristics including stone size, count and location. We evaluated the surgical outcome, analyzing stone-free rates, reintervention rates, complication rates, as well as surgery time. Learning curve for single-use ureterorenoscopes was evaluated by comparing the surgical outcome between residents and consultants.

Results

The average time needed per intervention was 52,31 min ± 28,11. In 77 out of 108 (71,30%) patients we were able to remove all stones by a single intervention. In 8 patients (7,41%) intra- or postoperative complications occurred, none of which was graded higher than Clavien-Dindo III B. We did not find any statistical differences comparing the surgical outcome between residents and consultants. No technical difficulties occurred during surgery.

Conclusion

Single-use flexible ureterorenoscopes provide decent working properties resulting in good surgical outcome. Furthermore, they are proven to be easy to handle even for unexperienced surgeons, making them a feasible choice for high volume academic centers.

Critical Assessment of Single-Use Ureteroscopes in an In Vivo Porcine Model

Methods

A female pig was placed under general anesthesia and positioned supine, and retrograde access to the renal collecting system was obtained. The LithoVue (Boston Scientific) and Uscope (Pusen Medical) were evaluated by three experienced surgeons, and each surgeon started with a new scope. The following parameters were compared between each ureteroscope: time for navigation to upper and lower pole calyces with and without implements (1.9 F basket, 200 μm laser fiber, and 365 μm laser fiber for upper only) in the working channel and subjective evaluations of maneuverability, irrigant flow through the scope, lever force, ergonomics, and scope optics.

Results

Navigation to the lower pole calyx was significantly faster with LithoVue compared to Uscope when the working channel was empty (24.3 vs. 49.4 seconds, p < 0.01) and with a 200 μm fiber (63.6 vs. 94.4 seconds, p=0.04), but not with the 1.9 F basket. Navigation to the upper pole calyx was similar for all categories except faster with LithoVue containing the 365 μm fiber (67.1 vs. 99.7 seconds, p=0.02). Subjective assessments of scope maneuverability to upper and lower pole calyces when the scope was empty and with implements favored LithoVue in all categories, as did assessments of irrigant flow, illumination, image quality, and field of view. Both scopes had similar scores of lever force and ergonomics.

Conclusions

In an in vivo porcine model, the type of single-use ureteroscope employed affected the navigation times and subjective assessments of maneuverability and visualization. In all cases, LithoVue provided either equivalent or superior metrics than Uscope. Further clinical studies are necessary to determine the implications of these findings.

Correlation of Operative Time with Outcomes of Ureteroscopy and Stone Treatment: a Systematic Review of Literature

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

To present the latest evidence related to the impact of increased operative times in retrograde intrarenal surgery and identify possible important factors that can facilitate ureteroscopy procedures.

RECENT FINDINGS

Ureteroscopy constitutes the mainstay treatment of renal stones and is characterized by a huge variation in techniques and instrumentation. It has been suggested that increased operative times can mitigate the outcomes of the procedures by increasing complication rates. Nevertheless, little is known about the time limits, above which complications are likely to occur. Furthermore, complication rates in different procedure durations have not yet been assessed. Prolonged operative times are linked to increased complication rates in ureteroscopy. Stone complexity, patient risk factors, surgeon experience, bilateral surgery, and instrumentation constitute important factors that can hamper or facilitate a procedure and should be taken into account beforehand. Keeping procedural times below 90 min can dissuade potential predicaments and achieve improved stone-free rates.

Laser fibre, rather than the stone, may harm the scope: retrospective monocentric analysis of 26 pre- and intraoperative factors of flexible ureteroscope (fURS) damage

PURPOSE

The increasing number of flexible ureteroscopy procedures, the fragility of devices and their repair costs are a burden for urological departments worldwide. The objective was to investigate the impact of 26 pre- and intraoperative factors on reusable flexible ureteroscope (fURS) damage.

METHODS

All procedures were conducted with reusable fURS: Karl Storz Flex-X2 or Olympus URF-V. Statistical analysis was performed in RStudio (1.0.136) with Chi-square test and Mann-Whitney U tests (MWU).

RESULTS

In total, 416 flexible ureteroscopies, performed between September 2013 and June 2017, were analysed. 283 (68.03%) of these were for kidney stone surgery, and 133 (31.97%) for diagnostic purposes. In total, 39 (9.38%) devices were postoperatively deemed defective. The application of reusable laser fibre through fURS was more common in cases with documented defects [17/39 (43.59%) vs. 102/377 (27.06%), p = 0.047]. Other factors such as application of nitinol basket, biopsy via fURS, insertion of access sheath (UAS), as well as stone burden [median kidney stone maximal diameter: 6 mm (min 2.0; max 30.0) vs. 6 mm (min 1.0 vs. max 30.0)] showed no influence on fURS damage rate (p > 0.05). The infundibulopelvic angle (IPA) was steeper in cases with fURS damage as compared to cases without damage [median 44.0° (min 20.0; max 81.0) vs. 55.0 (min 7.0; max 122.0), p < 0.001].

CONCLUSIONS

Application of laser fibre via fURS can be considered as a risk factor of fURS damage. Stone burden, as well as the usage of not-sharp ended devices as nitinol baskets or forceps, is primarily not responsible for fURS damage.

Single-Use Versus Reusable Digital Flexible Ureteroscopes for the Treatment of Renal Calculi: A Prospective Multicenter Randomized Controlled Trial

Objective: To compare the efficacy and safety of a single-use digital flexible ureteroscope (f-URS) and a reusable digital f-URS (URF-V) for the treatment of renal stones in adults. Patients and Methods: In this randomized open-label noninferiority trial, we randomly selected patients with renal stones to receive ureteroscopy through a single-use digital f-URS (ZebraScope^™; Happiness Workshop, Beijing, China) or a URF-V (Olympus, Tokyo, Japan). The primary endpoint was the 1-month postsurgical stone-free rate (SFR). The secondary efficacy endpoints assessed were the high-quality rate of images, the eligible rate of operability, the operative time, and the length of hospital stay. The safety outcomes assessed were the presence of postoperative complications, adverse events (AEs), and serious AEs (SAEs). The noninferiority margin was set at -10%. Results: In total, 126 patients completed the study (i.e., 63 patients in each group). The demographic and preoperative parameters were comparable between the two groups. The 1-month SFR was 77.78% for the ZebraScope group and 68.25% for the URF-V group (two-sided 95% confidence interval [CI]: -5.95 to 25.01). The high-quality rate of images and the eligible rate of operability were 100% in both groups (two-sided 95% CI: -5.27 to 5.35). There was no difference between the two groups in the operative time (p = 0.687), the length of hospital stay (p = 0.430), the presence of postoperative complications (p = 0.310), the presence of AEs (p = 0.709), and the presence of SAEs (p = 0.648). The most important and fatal SAE was acute urinary tract obstruction. Conclusion: The single-use digital f-URS (ZebraScope) appears to be at least noninferior to URF-V regarding the 1-month SFR, the high-quality rate of images, and the eligible rate of operability. Single-use digital f-URSs are an effective and safe alternative to URF-V.

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.

Endoscopic treatment of lower pole stones: is a disposable ureteroscope preferable? Results of a prospective case-control study

Introduction

The best option for lower pole stone management is still under debate. With the recent incorporation of disposable ureteroscopes, discussion on this topic has been renewed. The aim of the present study was to compare the results obtained with flexible disposable ureteroscopes with those obtained using reusable ureteroscopes in the treatment of inferior calyx stones.

Material and methods

A case-control study was carried out using data registered prospectively in a database at our center. The clinical results obtained in two groups of patients were analyzed. In the first group of patients, a reusable flexible fiber-optic ureteroscope (Cobra^®, Richard Wolf) was used, and in the second group, a disposable flexible ureteroscope was used (Uscope 3022^®, Pusen Medical). The variables analyzed included: operative time, fluoroscopy time, need for postprocedure ureteral catheter, stone-free rate (fragments <1 millimeter) and complications. The results were evaluated using a Student's t test, a Mann-Whitney test and a Fisher's test.

Results

There were 31 cases with disposable ureteroscopes and 30 cases with a reusable ureteroscope. Both groups were comparable in their demographic and clinical variables. The characteristics regarding length, width and angle of the infundibulum (measured by retrograde ureteropyelography) were also comparable. There were no differences in the clinical findings with respect to the stone-free rate, need for a ureteral catheter, complications or hospital stay. Significant differences were found in the average surgery time (56.1 vs. 77 minutes; P = 0.01) and in the fluoroscopy time (66.1 vs. 83.4 seconds; P = 0.02), both favoring the use of single use ureteroscopes.

Conclusions

In this study, disposable flexible ureteroscopes have been validated as an option that is in the least equivalent to reusable ureteroscopes based on clinical results. The shorter surgical and fluoroscopy durations are possible advantages considering the high costs associated with time spent in the operating room and the need to reduce ionizing radiation.

Characteristics of current digital single-use flexible ureteroscopes versus their reusable counterparts: an in-vitro comparative analysis

Background

Single-use flexible ureterorenoscopes (fURSs) have been recently introduced aiming to offer solutions to the sterilization, fragility and cost issues of the reusable fURSs. In order to be a viable alternative, the single-use scopes must prove similar capabilities when compared to their reusable counterparts. The goal of our in-vitro study was to compare the current reusable and single-use digital fURSs regarding their deflection, irrigation and vision characteristics.

Methods

We compared in-vitro 4 single-use fURSs-LithoVue™ (Boston Scientific, Marlborough, Massachusetts, USA), Uscope™ (Zhuhai Pusen Medical Technology Co. Ltd., Zhuhai, Guangdong Province, China), NeoFlex™ (NeoScope Inc, San Jose, California, USA) and ShaoGang™ (YouCare Technology Co. Ltd., Wuhan, China) versus 4 reusable fURSs-FLEX-X^c (Karl Storz SE & Co KG, Tuttlingen, Germany), URF-V2 (Olympus, Shinjuku, Tokyo, Japan), COBRA vision and BOA vision (Richard Wolf GmbH, Knittlingen, Germany). Deflection and irrigation abilities were evaluated with different instruments inserted through the working channel: laser fibres (200/273/365 µm), retrieval baskets (1.5/1.9/2.2 Fr), guide wires [polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE) 0.038 inch, nitinol 0.035 inch] and a biopsy forceps. A scoring system was designed to compare the deflection impairment. Saline at different heights (40/80 cm) was used for irrigation. The flow was measured with the tip of the fURS initially straight and then fully deflected. The vision characteristics were evaluated (field of view, depth of field, image resolution, distortion and colour representation) using specific target models.

Results

Overall, the single-use fURSs had superior in-vitro deflection abilities than the reusable fURSs, in most settings. The highest score was achieved by NeoFlex™ and the lowest by ShaoGang™. PTFE guide wire had most impact on deflection for all fURSs. The 200 µm laser fibre had the lowest impact on deflection for the single-use fURSs. The 1.5 Fr basket caused the least deflection impairment on reusable fURSs. At the end of the tests, deflection loss was noted in most of the single-use fURSs, while none of the reusable fURSs presented deflection impairment. ShaoGang™ had the highest irrigation flow. Increasing the size of the instruments occupying the working channel led to decrease of irrigation flow in all fURSs. The impact of maximal deflection on irrigation flow was very low for all fURSs. When instruments were occupying the working channel, the single-use fURSs had slightly better in-vitro irrigation flow than the reusable fURSs. The field of view was comparable for all fURSs, with LithoVue™ showing a slight advantage. Depth of field and colour reproducibility were almost similar for all fURSs. ShaoGang™ and Uscope™ had the lowest resolution. FLEX X^c had the highest image distortion while LithoVue™ had the lowest. Partial field of view impairment was not for Uscope™ and ShaoGang™.

Conclusions

In-vitro, there are differences in technical characteristics of fURSs. It appears that single-use fURSs deflect better than their reusable counterparts. Irrespective of deflection, the irrigation flow of the single-use fURSs was slightly superior to the flow of the reusable fURSs. Overall, reusable fURSs had better vision characteristics than single-use fURSs. Further in-vivo studies might be necessary to confirm these findings.

Reusable flexible ureterorenoscopes are more cost-effective than single-use scopes: results of a systematic review from PETRA Uro-group

Clinical data suggest an equipoise between single-use (disposable) and reusable flexible ureterorenoscope (fURS) in terms of scope characteristics, manipulation, view and clinical outcomes. The procedural cost of reusable fURS is dependent on the initial and repair cost, maintenance and scope sterilization and on the number of procedures performed/repair. We conducted a systematic review on the procedural cost ($) of fURS based on the individual authors reported data on the number of procedures performed before repair and to see if it is a feasible option compared to single use fURS. A systematic review carried out in a Cochrane style and in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) checklist using Medline, Scopus, CINAHL, EMBASE and Cochrane library for all English language articles. All papers on fURS cost analysis were searched from 2000-2018 (19 years), which mentioned the cost of fURS based on the number of procedures performed and the repairs needed (procedure/repair) as reported by the individual authors. Six studies reported on both the number of procedures performed with number of repairs needed and the cost calculated/procedure in the given time period. The number of uses/repair in various studies varied between 8-29 procedures and the cost per procedure varied between $120-1,212/procedure. A significant trend was observed between the decreasing cost of repair with the number of usages. With studies reporting on a minimum of 20 cases/repair the mean cost was around $200/procedure. This is contrast to the disposable scopes such as Lithovue ($1,500-2,000/usage) and Pusen ($700/usage). The cost of reusable fURS is low in centres performing a high volume of procedures. Similarly, when a reasonable volume of procedures is performed before scope repair, the cost is lower than the disposable scopes. Although, the disposable and reusable scopes seem to be comparable in terms of their performance, this review proves that reusable fURS are still more cost effective than disposable scopes.

Single use versus reusable digital flexible ureteroscopes: A prospective comparative study

OBJECTIVES

To compare the performance and surgical outcomes of two different single-use digital flexible ureteroscopes with a reusable video flexible ureteroscope.

METHODS

Patients undergoing retrograde flexible ureteroscopy at Nepean Hospital, Sydney, Australia, were included in this study. Three different flexible ureteroscopes were used in this study: (i) single-use digital LithoVue (Boston Scientific, Marlborough, MA, USA); (ii) single-use digital PU3022A (Pusen, Zhuhai, China); and (iii) reusable digital URF-V2 (Olympus, Tokyo, Japan). Visibility and maneuverability was rated on a 5-point Likert scale by the operating surgeon. Operative outcomes and complications were collected and analyzed.

RESULTS

A total of 150 patients were included in the present study. Of these, 141 patients had ureteroscopy for stone treatment, four for endoscopic combined intrarenal surgery and five for diagnostic/tumor treatment. There were 55 patients in the LithoVue group, 31 in the PU3022A group and 64 patients in the Olympus URF-V2 group. The URF-V2 group had higher visibility scores than both the single-use scopes and higher maneuverability scores when compared with the PU3022A. The LithoVue had higher visibility and maneuverability scores when compared with the PU3022A. There were no differences in operative time, rates of relook flexible ureteroscopes, scope failure or complication rates observed.

CONCLUSIONS

Single-use digital flexible ureteroscopes have visibility and maneuverability profiles approaching that of a reusable digital flexible ureteroscope. Single-use flexible ureteroscopes achieve similar clinical outcomes to the more expensive reusable versions.

Comparative medico-economic study of reusable vs. single-use flexible ureteroscopes

PURPOSE

Reusable flexible-ureteroscopes (fURS) require personnel and budget for processing and repairing, whereas single-use fURS were recently developed. After exclusive reusable fURS since 2011, we experienced high repair costs and single-use fURS were therefore introduced in mid-2017. We aimed to evaluate economic and practical advantages and disadvantages of reusable versus single-use fURS.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

First, we evaluated the incidence of breakage and repairs of reusable fURS in 2017. We assessed the overall operational costs of reusable fURS including purchase, processing, and repairing in our institution from 2011 to 2017. Following our experience, we created a model to compare operation costs/procedure of single-use fURS with reusable fURS depending on repair costs.

RESULTS

In 2017, repair costs of reusable fURS increased by 345% compared with the period 2011-2016, causing: a median unavailability per reusable fURS of 200 days/year (100-249), median number of functioning fURS 0/5-3/5 per operating day, while unavailability of reusable fURS had become the first reason for cancellation of procedure. Since it was introduced, single-use fURS accounted for 59% of the flexible ureteroscopy activity. Taking into account the costs of processing, maintenance and repair, in 2011-2016 versus 2017, the single-use fURS was cost-effective compared with the reusable fURS until the 22nd procedure versus the 73rd procedure, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

After years of exclusive reusable fURS, the rising incidence of breakage not only increased maintenance costs but also hampered daily activity owing to unavailability of the devices. The introduction of single-use with reusable fURS provided substantial help to maintain our activity.