Flexible ureteroscopy: reuse? Or is single use the new direction?

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.

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.

International Alliance of Urolithiasis guideline on retrograde intrarenal surgery

OBJECTIVES

To set out the second in a series of guidelines on the treatment of urolithiasis by the International Alliance of Urolithiasis that concerns retrograde intrarenal surgery (RIRS), with the aim of providing a clinical framework for urologists performing RIRS.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

After a comprehensive search of RIRS-related literature published between 1 January 1964 and 1 October 2021 from the PubMed database, systematic review and assessment were performed to inform a series of recommendations, which were graded using modified GRADE methodology. Additionally, quality of evidence was classified using a modification of the Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine Levels of Evidence system. Finally, related comments were provided.

RESULTS

A total of 36 recommendations were developed and graded that covered the following topics: indications and contraindications; preoperative imaging; preoperative ureteric stenting; preoperative medications; peri-operative antibiotics; management of antithrombotic therapy; anaesthesia; patient positioning; equipment; lithotripsy; exit strategy; and complications.

CONCLUSION

The series of recommendations regarding RIRS, along with the related commentary and supporting documentation, offered here should help provide safe and effective performance of RIRS.

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.

RIRS with disposable or reusable scopes: does it make a difference? Results from the multicenter FLEXOR study

Introduction

With several single-use ureteroscopes now available, our aim was to analyze and compare data obtained globally from high-volume centers using both disposable and reusable flexible ureteroscopes and see if indeed in real-world practice either scope has a distinct advantage.

Methods

Retrospective analysis was performed on the FLEXOR registry, which was created as a TOWER group (Team of Worldwide Endourological Researchers, research wing of the Endourological Society) endeavor. Patients who underwent retrograde intrarenal surgery (RIRS) for renal stones from January 2018 to August 2021 were enrolled from 20 centers globally. A total of 6663 patients whose data were available for analysis were divided into Group 1 (Reusable scopes, 4808 patients) versus Group 2 (Disposable scopes, 1855 patients).

Results

The age and gender distribution were similar in both groups. The mean stone size was 11.8 mm and 9.6 mm in Groups 2 and 1, respectively (p < 0.001). Group 2 had more patients with >2 cm stones, lower pole stones and of higher Hounsfield unit. Thulium fiber laser (TFL) was used more in Group 2 (p < 0.001). Patients in Group 2 had a slightly higher stone-free rate (SFR) (78.22%) and a lower number of residual fragments (RFs) compared with Group 1 (p < 0.001). The need for further treatments for RF and overall complications was comparable between groups. On multivariate analysis, overall complications were more likely to occur in elderly patients, larger stone size, lower pole stones, and were also more when using disposable scopes with longer operative time. RFs were significantly higher (p < 0.001) for lower pole, larger, harder, multiple stones and in elderly.

Conclusion

Our real-world practice observations suggest that urologists choose disposable scopes for bigger, lower pole, and harder stones, and it does indeed help in improving the single-stage SFR if used correctly, with the appropriate lasers and lasing techniques in expert hands.

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.

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.

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.

Disposable versus Reusable Ureteroscopes: A Prospective Multicenter Randomized Comparison

Purpose

To compare reusable and disposable flexible ureteroscopes in terms of efficacy and safety for patients undergoing Retrograde Intrarenal Surgery (RIRS).

Patients and Methods

Patients with a renal stone eligible for RIRS were enrolled in this multicenter, randomized, clinical trial study. Patients were randomized into two groups: group A (90 patients) underwent RIRS with a reusable flexible ureteroscope and group B (90 patients) were treated with a disposable one.

Results

The patients’ demographics, stone features and pre-operative urine cultures were comparable between the groups. The Stone Free Rates (SFRs) were not significantly different (86.6% and 90.0% for group A and group B, respectively, p=0.11) and the mean cost for each procedure was comparable (2321 € in group A vs 2543 € in group B, p=0.09). However, the days of hospitalization and of antibiotic therapy were higher in group A (p ≤ 0.05). The overall complication rate in group A was 8.8% whilst in group B it was 3.3% (p ≤ 0.05); in particular, group A exhibited a greater number of major complications (Clavien score IIIa-V). The overall postoperative infection rate was 16.6% in group A and 3.3% in group B (p ≤ 0.05). Furthermore, none of the patients in group B developed urosepsis or had a positive blood culture, while 3 patients in group A did (p<0.05).

Conclusion

The use of disposable ureteroscopes is characterized by significantly lower post-operative complications and infection rates, while having comparable costs and SFRs vis à vis reusable ureteroscopes. Clinical Trial Registration Number: ISRCTN92289221.

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.

Operator-assisted vs self-achieved basketing during ureteroscopy: results from an in vitro preference study

OBJECTIVES

A recently introduced device (LithoVue Empower™ or LE, Boston Scientifics, USA) allows the surgeon to directly control the stone-retrieving basket without the need of an assistant during flexible ureteroscopy. We aimed to evaluate the stone-retrieval performance of this device.

METHODS

We used a bench-training model for flexible ureteroscopy, the Key-box (K-Box®, Porgès-Coloplast, France), to compare the LE configured with a 1.9F stone-retrieval tipless basket (ZeroTip™, Boston Scientific, USA) and a traditional assistant-maneuvered 1.9F stone-retrieval tipless basket. Seven experienced endo-urologists and seven residents-in-training retrieved a fake stone from three different renal cavities of the K-Box with increasing access complexity first with the traditional basket and then with the LE device. We recorded retrieval time and all the operators filled in the NASA Task Load Index (TLI) for the self-evaluation of their performance. We then compared the use of LE in terms of retrieval time, failure rates, and NASA-TLI scores.

RESULTS

Stone retrieval times and failure rates were similar according to the retrieval technique, although residents had non-statistically significant shorter times with the LE. NASA-TLI scores revealed lower frustration (p = 0.03) when LE was used by experienced urologists as compared to the traditional basketing. When stratifying the analyses according to surgical experience, fully trained urologists performed faster stone retrieval and showed lower effort scores than residents-in-training (p < 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

The individually controlled retrieval system is an effective device assisting stone retrieval and does not necessitate specific training among experienced endo-urologists. Young residents might benefit from LE during their learning curve.

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.