Micro-Costing Analysis Demonstrates Comparable Costs for LithoVue Compared to Reusable Flexible Fiberoptic Ureteroscopes

Recent advances in the treatment of renal stones using flexible ureteroscopys

Upper urinary tract stones are a common urological disease that can be treated by flexible ureteroscopy (FURS) through the natural urinary tract, in addition to extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL) and percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL). The advantages of FURS are less trauma, faster recovery, and fewer complications, while its disadvantages include poor results of lithotripsy and stone extraction when dealing with larger stones, and prolonged operation time. Over the last two decades, the emergence of new technologies such as FURS combined with negative pressure suction, robot-assisted FURS, and artificially intelligent FURS, coupled with improvements in laser technology (the use of thulium fiber lasers (TFL) and the invention of single-use flexible ureteroscopes (su-fURS) suitable for primary level application, have significantly increased the global adoption of FURS. This surge in usage holds a promising future in clinical application, benefiting a growing number of patients with renal calculi. Accompanied by changes in technical concepts and therapeutic modalities, the scope of indications for FURS is broadening, positioning it as a potential primary choice for urolithiasis treatment in the future. This review outlines the progress in employing flexible ureteroscopy for the treatment of renal calculi in order to generate insights for further research.

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.

Reuse of Single-Use Devices in Endourology: A Review

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

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.

Single-use flexible ureteroscope provides an alternative treatment for upper urinary calculi: A systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of single-use flexible ureteroscope and reusable flexible ureteroscope for upper urinary calculi.

METHODS

We conducted a meta-analysis that had a comprehensive search in PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, and WanFang databases from 2000/01/01 to 2023/06/01 for available randomized controlled trials. "Ureteroscopes," "Flexible Ureteroscope," "Single-use," and "Upper Urinary Calculi" were used as the major keywords for the search. Review Manager 5.0 and STATA 12.0 were used for calculation and statistical analysis.

RESULTS

A total of 9 randomized controlled trials comprising 1293 participants were included in our meta-analysis. Single use-FURS had better results in stone-free rate (relative risk: 1.08, 95% confidence interval: [1.02, 1.15], P = .02) and postoperative infection (relative risk: 0.41, 95% confidence interval: [0.23, 0.72], P = .002). Operative time, hemoglobin decline, postoperative serum creatinine, postoperative hospital stay, and overall complication after surgery showed no significant differences between the 2 procedures (P > .05).

CONCLUSION

Single-use flexible ureteroscope provides a valuable alternative to reusable flexible ureteroscope in upper urinary calculi with its better visual field performance and manipulation, opening a new technological revolution for kidney stone treatment.

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

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

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

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.

Microdamage analysis of single-use flexible ureteroscope immediately after lithotripsy use

This prospective ex vivo study investigated microdamage to single-use flexible ureteroscopes (fURS) after ureteroscopy and endoscopic combined intrarenal surgery (ECIRS). The performance of 30 WiScope devices (OTU Medical, San Jose, CA, USA) was examined immediately after use, dividing them into three equal groups: ureteroscopy and ECIRS in the prone and supine positions. The overall scope of microdamage assessment included the scope deflection, bending radius, resolution, and water flow rate. Additionally, we analyzed the association between scope status and surgical parameters. The deflection, bending radius, and resolution remained similarly above the thresholds in all groups. However, the water flow rate was below the threshold in seven scopes (70%) in the ureteroscopy group and none in the ECIRS groups (P = 0.001). Univariate and multivariable logistic regression analyses demonstrated that basket wire catheter use was associated with an increased risk for overall scope microdamage (odds ratio [OR], 22.70; P = 0.006 and OR, 22.40; P = 0.019, respectively). Stone size, total laser energy, and surgical position were not associated with a risk for scope microdamage. In conclusion, ureteroscopy was more closely associated with scope damage than ECIRS, and basket wire catheter use seemed to inflict more damage to the 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.

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

Context

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

Objective

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

Evidence acquisition

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

Evidence synthesis

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

Conclusions

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

Patient summary

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

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.

Single-Use Versus Reusable Endoscopes for Percutaneous Biliary Endoscopy with Lithotripsy: Technical Metrics, Clinical Outcomes, and Cost Comparison

PURPOSE

To compare procedure and fluoroscopy time, technical and clinical success, and costs between single-use and reusable endoscopes in patients undergoing percutaneous biliary endoscopy (PBE) with lithotripsy.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

In this retrospective study, we included 34 patients (67 procedures) treated with PBE for gallstone removal from October 24, 2014, through February 12, 2020, using reusable (28 procedures) or single-use (39 procedures) endoscopes. We compared 1) procedure time, 2) fluoroscopy time, 3) technical success rate (accessing the biliary system and locating the gallstone), 4) clinical success rate (at least partial gallstone removal), 5) complication rate, and 6) cost of use. Alpha = 0.05.

RESULTS

Mean (± standard deviation) procedure time was not significantly different between single-use (136 ± 45 minutes) and reusable endoscopes (136 ± 51 minutes) (p = 0.47). Mean fluoroscopy time was significantly shorter for single-use endoscopes (11 ± 8.4 minutes) than for reusable endoscopes (18 ± 12 minutes) (p = 0.01). When comparing single-use vs. reusable endoscopes, rates were not significantly different for technical success (N=37, 95% vs. N=26, 93%) or clinical success (N=35, 90% vs. N=21, 75%) (both, p>0.05). Only 1 complication was noted in the reusable endoscope group (p=0.42). Cost per case was lower for single-use ($1500) than for reusable ($3987) endoscope procedures, primarily due to differences in capital costs and costs due to repair.

CONCLUSION

Single-use endoscopes offer the potential for less radiation exposure to the patient and lower cost per case, which may reduce financial barriers to offering PBE in interventional radiology practices. Clinical and technical success rates did not differ by endoscope type.

Disposable Ureteroscopes in Urology: Current State and Future Prospects

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

OBJECTIVES

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

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

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

Relevance of Adopting a Hybrid Strategy Mixing Single-Use and Reusable Ureteroscopes for Stones Management: An Economic Study to Support the Best Strategy

Endoscopic procedures such as ureteroscopy (URS) have seen a recent increase in single-use devices. Despite all the advantages provided by disposable ureteroscopes (sURSs), their cost effectiveness remains questionable, leading most teams to use a hybrid strategy combining reusable (rURS) and disposable devices. Our study aimed to create an economic model that estimated the cut-off value of rURS procedures needed to support the profitability of a hybrid strategy (HS) for ureteroscopy. We used a budget impact analysis (BIA) model that estimated the financial impact of an HS compared to 100% sURS use. The model included hospital volume, sterilization costs and the private or public status of the institution. Although the hybrid strategy generally remains the best economic and clinical option, a predictive BIA model is recommended for the decision-making. We found that the minimal optimal proportion of rURS procedures in an HS was mainly impacted by the activity volume and overall number of sterilization procedures. Private and public institutions must consider these variables and models in order to adapt their HS and remain profitable.

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.

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).

Isiris™ for Ureteric Stent Removal in Renal Transplantation: An Initial Single-Centre Experience of 150 Cases

Background. Ureteric stent insertion is performed at the time of renal transplant to minimise the risk of post-operative urological complications, including anastomotic leak and ureteric stenosis or obstruction. Transplant ureteric stent removal (TUSR) has historically been performed via flexible cystoscopy, predominantly in a theatre setting. Isiris™ is a single-use cystoscope with integrated grasper designed for removal of ureteric stents. We report our initial experience. Methods. A retrospective analysis of a contemporaneously maintained database was performed with review of case notes from October 2017 to September 2018. TUSR was performed by surgical middle grades with a single nurse assistant. Results. One hundred and fifty ureteric stents were removed in transplant recipients (mean age 50.2 years, SD ± 15.2; 61.3% male). 91.3% (n = 137) of cases were performed in the outpatient clinic. Median time to TUSR was 42 days (IQR 30-42). 147 attempts at removal were successful. One urinary tract infection (UTI) was reported following TUSR. Use of the Isiris™ for TUSR corresponds to a £63,480 saving in this cohort compared to conventional practice. This value is conservative and does not include income that has been gained from the reallocation of operating theatre capacity. Conclusion. Isiris™ can safely be employed for the timely performance of non-complicated TUSR. Isiris™ releases this procedure from the confines of the operating theatre to the outpatient clinic. This reduces the resource burden for healthcare providers and may result in improved patient satisfaction. The environmental implications of disposable healthcare equipment require consideration. Evaluation of Isiris™ TUSR for encrustation is required.

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

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

Benchtop Assessment of a New Single-Use Flexible Ureteroscope

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

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

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

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.

Cost comparison of single-use versus reusable flexible ureteroscope: A systematic review

Single-use flexible ureteroscopes (su-fURS) aim at overcoming the main limitations of conventional reusable flexible ureteroscopes (re-fURS) in terms of acquisition and maintenance costs, breakages, and reprocessing. We aimed to perform a literature review on available re-fURS and su-fURS performances with a focus on costs. A search of Medline, EMBASE, CINAHL, and Scopus databases was performed to identify articles published in English within the last 10 years addressing refURS and su-fURS characteristics, clinical, and cost data. Relevant studies were then screened, and the data were extracted, analyzed, and summarized. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analysis criteria were applied. A narrative synthesis was performed. To date, few studies have properly investigated the issue of costs in ureteroscopy. An important local and international variation in costs exists for both re-fURS and su-fURS in terms of acquisition, maintenance, and repair costs. Reusable scopes have high acquisition and ancillary (e.g. repair, involved personnel) costs, which are not considered in a pure su-fURS activity. However, only recently su-fURS were shown to have a similar efficacy as compared with reusable devices. In high-volume centers, with proper training for reusable ureteroscopes management, the cost per case of reusable and single-use scopes are overlapping ($1,212-$1,743 versus $1,300-$3,180 per procedure). There is a partial overlap in the ranges of costs for single-use and reusable scopes, which makes it important to precisely know the caseload, repair bills, and added expenses when negotiating purchase prices, repair prices, and warranty conditions for scopes.

Switching to Single-use Flexible Ureteroscopes for Stones Management: Financial Impact and Solutions to Reduce the Cost Over a 5-Year Period

OBJECTIVES

To assess the financial impact of switching to single-use ureteroscopes (sURS) in urolithiasis management for a hospital, over a 5-year period, and to identify possible solutions to contain or reduce it.

METHODS

A Budget Impact (BI) model was designed for a public hospital performing around 200 ureteroscopies or extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsies per year. The BI was estimated as the difference between financial balances (between costs and revenues) of 2 environments (with and without sURS). The population was defined as adults treated for urolithiasis. The BI model was based on assumptions about the expected progression in the incidence of urolithiasis, and the expected change in clinical practices due to the availability of sURS. We considered the costs and revenues of hospital stays, the purchase price of sURS and the costs of digital or fiberoptic reusable ureteroscopes (rURS). Univariate and multivariate sensitivity analyses were performed.

RESULTS

The cumulative 5-year financial impact of switching completely to sURS was €807,824 and €649,677 in comparison with fiberoptic and digital rURS respectively. This impact could be reduced by half or more if the health-care facility were to adopt different solutions, including negotiating the purchase price of sURS, developing outpatient activity and reducing production costs for ureteroscopy procedures.

CONCLUSION

The BI model gives decision-makers a more accurate picture of the financial impact of switching to sURS and highlights ways to reduce the expected additional cost.

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.

Urology highlights 2017 to 2018

The final clinical session of the British Association of Urological Surgeons (BAUS) annual meeting is the Updates and Highlights session, where the most important advances in the main urological sub-specialities are summarised and presented by sub-specialist experts representing each BAUS section. The aim of the session is to disseminate knowledge on the latest research, new guidelines and changes to general and specialist clinical practice. This paper covers contemporary urological advances as presented at the Liverpool BAUS meeting in June 2018.

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

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

A 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.

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.

Handling and protecting your flexible ureteroscope: how to maximise scope usage

Flexible ureteroscopy is an important therapeutic and diagnostic procedure and has seen rapid rise in its utilisation in recent years. There have been numerous developments in flexible ureteroscope (fURS) technology but scope fragility, and the associated high maintenance costs, remains a concern. A comprehensive Medline search for related publications from the last 20 years was undertaken to identify common causes of fURS damage and ascertain practices to minimise this. Flexible ureteroscopy can be due to intraoperative causes (loss of the deflection mechanism, damage to the working channel due and fibreoptic bundle injury) and non-operative damage which occur during cleaning, sterilisation and handling of the fURS. The review summarises the available literature to help highlight common mechanisms of scope damage, and outlines evidence-based measures to reduce the risk of damage and maximise durability. Scope fragility remains a problem with significant associated cost implications. In a culture of rising fURS use and reducing re-imbursement for endourologists, prolonging the longevity of the fURS is imperative for maintaining profitability. There are simple and inexpensive practices which can be immediately adopted to maximise fURS use and reduce the need for repairs.

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.

Single-Use Ureteroscopes

A PubMed search using the terms "single use" and "ureteroscope" was performed to identify published studies on this topic. In addition, the abstracts of the annual meeting of the World Congress of Endourology and the American Urologic Association since 2010 were reviewed. Here we present a review of published studies on single-use ureteroscopes.

Assessing Cost-Effectiveness of New Technologies in Stone Management

Diagnosis, treatment, and follow-up are all influential in determining the overall cost to the health care system for kidney stones. New innovations in the field of nephrolithiasis have been abundant, including disposable ureteroscopes, ultrasound-guided approaches to percutaneous nephrolithotomy, and advanced laser lithotripters. Identifying cost-effective treatment strategies encourages practitioners to be thoughtful about providing value-based high-quality care and remains on important principle in the treatment of urinary stone disease.

Single-use versus reusable ureterorenoscopes for retrograde intrarenal surgery (RIRS): systematic comparative analysis of physical and optical properties in three different devices

INTRODUCTION

Retrograde intrarenal surgery (RIRS) represents a standard option for kidney stone removal. However, RIRS is considered a cost-intensive procedure. Single-use flexible ureterorenoscopes have been introduced to improve budget predictability in RIRS. We assessed differences in physical and optical properties of single-use devices compared to standard reusable endoscopes.

METHODS

In two single-use (LithoVue™, Boston Scientific; Pusen Uscope UE3011™), and one reusable ureterorenoscope (Flex-Xc™, Karl Storz), we investigated flow rates, deflection, illuminance, and intrapelvic pressure in a porcine kidney model. Subjective image quality was assessed using a standardized questionnaire. Common insertable devices were applied to investigate additional influence on physical properties.

RESULTS

Significant variability in maximum flow rates was observed (Flex-Xc™: 25.8 ml/min, LithoVue™: 30.3 ml/min, Pusen™: 33.4 ml/min, p < 0.05). Insertion of a guide wire resulted in the highest reduction of flow rates in all endoscopes. Flection led to a reduction of absolute flow rates up to 9.4% (Flex-Xc™). Light intensity at 20/50 mm distance was 9090 lx/1857 lx (Flex-Xc™) and 5733 lx/1032 lx (LithoVue™) and 2160 lx/428 lx (Pusen™), respectively (p < 0.05). Subjective image quality score was highest using the Flex-Xc™ endoscope. During manipulation, maximum intrarenal pressure up to 66 mmHg (Pusen™) was measured.

CONCLUSIONS

Significant differences in physical and optical properties of single-use or reusable flexible ureterorenoscopes are present, with putative influence on surgical efficacy and complications. Further comparative evaluation of single-use and reusable endoscopes in a clinical scenario is useful. Moreover, utilization of ureteral access sheaths may be considered to avoid renal damage.