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

Sustainable practices in hospital and operating theaters

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

This review aims to provide an update on the results of studies published in the last two years involving the development of sustainable practices in hospital and operating theaters (OT).

RECENT FINDINGS

Recently, many studies evaluated various initiatives to better understand the environmental impact of the OT but also to minimize its environmental impact. Many trials evidenced the positive impact of the instrument's reuse using an appropriate reprocessing procedure. Better waste segregation is associated with a reduction of produced waste and contributes to a significant reduction in CO 2 equivalent emissions. Regarding anaesthetic gas, Desflurane is known to have the worst environmental impact and the majority of the study evidenced that its reduction permits to drastically reduce greenhouse gas emission of the OT.

SUMMARY

Greening the OT necessitates climate-smart actions such as waste reduction, the improvement of reusable instruments, recycling of our waste and better anaesthetic gas management. Within the last two years, many efforts have been made to reduce and better segregate waste produced in the OT and also to better understand the environmental impact of disposable and reusable devices.

2022 Recommendations of the AFU Lithiasis Committee: Ureteroscopy and ureterorenoscopy

Technical advances, including miniaturization, have improved the deflection and optical performance of the ureteroscopes, and the availability of dedicated disposable devices have led to their increasing use for kidney and ureteral stone management. Ureterorenoscopy brings diagnostic evidence through the endoscopic description of stones and renal papillary abnormalities. Currently, intracorporeal lithotripsy during ureterorenoscopy is based on laser sources. Routine ureteral stenting is not necessary before ureterorenoscopy, especially because preoperative stenting for>30 days is considered as an independent risk factor of infection. Ureteral access sheaths allow the easy and repeated access to the upper urinary tract and thus facilitate ureterorenoscopy. Their use improves vision, decreases intrarenal pressure, and possibly reduces the operative time, but they may cause ureteral injury. METHODOLOGY: These recommendations were developed using two methods: the Clinical Practice Recommendation (CPR) method and the ADAPTE method, depending on whether or not the question was considered in the European Association of Urology (EAU) recommendations (https://uroweb.org/guidelines/urolithiasis [EAU 2022]) and their adaptability to the French context.

Best Practice in Interventional Management of Urolithiasis: An Update from the European Association of Urology Guidelines Panel for Urolithiasis 2022

PURPOSE

The European Association of Urology (EAU) has updated its guidelines on clinical best practice in urolithiasis for 2021. We therefore aimed to present a summary of best clinical practice in surgical intervention for patients with upper tract urolithiasis.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The panel performed a comprehensive literature review of novel data up to May 2021. The guidelines were updated and a strength rating was given for each recommendation, graded using the modified Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluations methodology.

RESULTS

The choice of surgical intervention depends on stone characteristics, patient anatomy, comorbidities, and choice. For shockwave lithotripsy (SWL), the optimal shock frequency is 1.0-1.5 Hz. For ureteroscopy (URS), a postoperative stent is not needed in uncomplicated cases. Flexible URS is an alternative if percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL) or SWL is contraindicated, even for stones >2 cm. For PCNL, prone and supine approaches are equally safe. For uncomplicated PCNL cases, a nephrostomy tube after PCNL is not necessary. Radiation exposure for endourological procedures should follow the as low as reasonably achievable principles.

CONCLUSIONS

This is a summary of the EAU urolithiasis guidelines on best clinical practice in interventional management of urolithiasis. The full guideline is available at https://uroweb.org/guidelines/urolithiasis.

PATIENT SUMMARY

The European Association of Urology has produced guidelines on the best management of kidney stones, which are summarised in this paper. Kidney stone disease is a common condition; computed tomography (CT) is increasingly used to diagnose it. The guidelines aim to decrease radiation exposure to patients by minimising the use of x-rays and CT scans. We detail specific advice around the common operations for kidney stones.

Disposable versus reusable gastroscopes: a prospective randomized noninferiority trial

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Disposable gastroscopes have recently been developed to eliminate the risk of infection transmission from contaminated reusable gastroscopes. We compared the performance of disposable and reusable gastroscopes in patients undergoing gastroscopy.

METHODS

Patients requiring gastroscopy were randomized to either the disposable or reusable digital gastroscope group. The primary endpoint was the success rate of photographing customary anatomic sites, with a noninferiority margin of -8%. Secondary endpoints were technical performance factors such as gastroscope imaging quality, maneuverability, gastroscopy completion rate, device failure/defect rate, operating time, and safety. Data were analyzed using the Newcombe-Wilson score method and Fisher exact 2-tailed t test.

RESULTS

Of 110 patients, 55 were treated using disposable gastroscopes and 55 using reusable gastroscopes. The success rate for capturing images of customary anatomic sites was 100% in both groups. The average imaging quality score was significantly lower (37.02 ± 3.09 vs 39.47 ± 1.92, P < .001) and the operating time significantly longer (P < .001) in the disposable gastroscope group. No significant differences in maneuverability, gastroscopy completion rate, device failure/defect rate, operating time, or safety were found between the 2 groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Given the overall safety profile and similar technical performance, disposable gastroscopes represent an alternative to reusable gastroscopes for routine examination, bedside first aid, and some certain circumstances.

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.

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.