Single-use disposable digital flexible ureteroscopes: an ex vivo assessment and cost analysis

Feasibility of open cholangioscopy with disposable flexible endoscopes

OBJECTIVE

To determine the feasibility of open cholangioscopy using disposable flexible endoscopes in canine cadavers and describe the surgical approach.

STUDY DESIGN

Ex vivo experimental cadaveric study.

SAMPLE POPULATION

Eight canine cadavers.

METHODS

Cadavers ranging from 5.8 to 43.8 kg underwent open transcholecystic cholangioscopy using a disposable flexible endoscope with a 3.8 mm outer diameter and 1.2 mm working channel and the surgical approach was described. The most distal anatomical region of the biliary tree towards the duodenal papilla that was visualized with the endoscope was recorded in each cadaver. A 2.7 mm rigid endoscope and a 1.9 mm flexible endoscope were also trialed and findings recorded. Endoscopic tools were trialed and their usage recorded.

RESULTS

The disposable flexible endoscope was feasible for visualization of the junction of the common bile duct, cystic duct, and hepatic ducts in all eight dogs. Cholangioscopy using a 2.7 mm rigid endoscope did not provide further distal visualization. The 1.9 mm flexible endoscope was able to traverse down to the level of the major duodenal papilla in a 43.8 kg cadaver. Use of certain endoscopic tools can be considered through the disposable flexible endoscope although fluid instillation was affected.

CONCLUSION

A 3.8 mm disposable flexible endoscope could be placed through an open transcholecystic approach to provide intraluminal endoscopic evaluation up to the level of the junction of the common bile duct, cystic duct, and hepatic ducts in dogs without cholecystic disease.

CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE

Open transcholecystic cholangioscopy with a disposable flexible endoscope could provide a low-cost diagnostic and therapeutic tool in cases of obstructive biliary disease up to the level of the common bile duct.

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.

Flexible Ureteroscopy: Global User Experience Using Disposable Devices

INTRODUCTION

Renal stone treatment through flexible ureteroscopy is widely established and successful. Ureteroscopes can broadly be classified into reusable and single-use disposable devices, each with their own advantages. Disposable scopes are cheaper to buy, maintain, and dispose of but may have a greater environmental impact and long-term cost. To establish the collective views of urologists, we conducted a multicentre, global study to demonstrate users' experience with single-use flexible ureteroscopes.  Methods: An online nine-question survey was distributed to urologists globally through email and social media platforms. Questions focused on user grade, experience, location, general opinion, advantages, disadvantages, and estimated cost of a single-use flexible ureteroscope. All responses were collated over a three-day period and analysed using descriptive statistics.

RESULTS

A total of 69 responses were received; the majority of responses were from the UK (75%), and most were consultants (64%). Two-thirds of those surveyed had used a single-use scope on a patient, and 95% of them stated they enjoyed using it, citing excellent vision and reduced need for maintenance. The majority (52%) stated that widespread adoption of disposable scopes was limited due to their prohibitive expense, with an average, sterling-converted responder-estimated cost of £991 (£100-£6000) per reusable scope.

CONCLUSION

Most urologists enjoyed using disposable scopes, finding them comparable or better than reusable devices. However, the initial cost can be prohibitive in certain centres. The potential environmental impact is a further concern as this remains largely unknown for now. In the meantime, it is likely that stone units will continue to use a combination of single-use and reusable scopes, considering their individual needs and budgets as well as local availability and price.

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.

Analysis and prediction of postoperative recurrence of unilateral upper ureteral calculi in 243 cases (nomogram)

Objective: This study aimed to identify the risk factors for postoperative recurrence of unilateral upper ureteral calculi and develop a predictive nomogram. Patients and Methods: A retrospective analysis was conducted on 243 patients diagnosed with unilateral upper ureteral calculi who were treated at our hospital between January 1, 2016 and December 31, 2018. Patients were divided into two groups: recurrence or non-recurrence cohort. Differences in age, gender, smoking and/or drinking habit, laterality, stone diameter, ureteral stricture, stone incarceration, urinary tract infection, surgical intervention, operation time, body mass index, and metabolic syndrome were analyzed. Discrete risk factors were screened, and a nomogram was developed to predict the probability of stone recurrence. Results: The study found that the recurrence of ureteral calculi was associated with factors including stone diameter, ureteral stricture, stone incarceration, surgical intervention, operation time, metabolic syndrome, body mass index, triglycerides, diabetes, and high blood pressure (p < 0.05). Ureteral stricture, surgical intervention, metabolic syndrome, and triglycerides were found to be discrete risk factors for stone recurrence (p < 0.05). In addition, the study revealed that the stone recurrence rate of metabolic syndrome patients was significantly elevated (p < 0.05), as demonstrated by the survival curve. Lastly, using the nomogram, with an area under the curve value of 0.929, the recurrence rate of ureteral calculi was predicted. Conclusions: The study identified that preoperative ureteral stricture, laparoscopic ureterolithotomy, metabolic syndrome, and triglycerides are closely related to postoperative recurrence of ureteral calculi. The nomogram developed in this study can be used as a predictive tool for the recurrence rate of ureteral calculi.

Endourological Options for Small (< 2 cm) Lower Pole Stones - Does the Lower Pole Angle Matter?

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Small renal stones in the lower pole are often difficult to treat. The angle of the lower pole to the renal pelvis (lower pole angle) is a limiting factor to rendering the patient stone free. This review explores the definitions of the lower pole angle, the various treatment options available, and how outcomes are influenced by the angle.

RECENT FINDINGS

It is clear the lower pole angle definition varies widely depending on described technique and imaging modality. However, it is clear that outcomes are worse with a steeper angle, especially for shock wave lithotripsy and retrograde intrarenal surgery (RIRS). Percutaneous nephrolithotomy has similar reported outcomes to RIRS, and there is limited evidence it may be superior for steeper angles over RIRS. Lower pole stones can be technically challenging and adequate assessment prior to choosing operative approach is key.

Single-Use Ureteroscopy and Environmental Footprint: Review of Current Evidence

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Ureteroscopy is a well-established treatment modality for kidney and ureteric calculi in addition to playing a key role in upper tract cancer diagnostics. Traditional reusable flexible ureteroscopes are technologically advanced and expensive pieces of equipment that require repeat sterilisation and periodical repair. These issues have led to the development of single-use flexible ureteroscopes that are disposed of after each case. Whilst this may be advantageous in many respects, the environmental impact of such technology is yet to be fully determined. The aim of this review is to therefore identify and summarise the available literature concerning the environmental footprint of single-use ureteroscopy.

RECENT FINDINGS

To identify the latest research on this topic, a systematic search of world literature was conducted using the Medline, Embase, and PsycINFO databases. PRISMA guidelines were followed and articles were assessed by all authors and relevant study results were included in a narrative format. Only one relevant article was identified and included. This study found that a single-use flexible ureteroscope (LithoVue^TM by Boston Scientific) generated an equivalent amount of carbon dioxide per case to a contemporary reusable flexible ureteroscope. Literature concerning the environmental footprint of single-use ureteroscopy is worryingly lacking. No conclusions can be definitively drawn from a single study and further research is imperative given the global climate crisis and the significant contribution that healthcare services have to the environmental problem.

Flexible ureteroscope capable of acute-angled and balanced omnidirectional bending based on soft and flexible porous tube and crossed control wiring

Flexible ureteroscopes (fURSs) have performance limitations in accessing acute-angled calyxes and omnidirectional bending. We propose and develop a fURS based on a soft and flexible porous tube and crossed control wiring to overcome these limitations. The fURS prototype comprises a flexible solid polyamide-12 tube and a stretch-retractable expanded polytetrafluoroethylene distal tube with 40% porosity connected by a unique cylindrical wire-routing hook (CWH). The series tube includes four crossed but not contacting loop-formed control wires to provide balanced omnidirectional bending and optimized distal tube bending performance. Bending performance was assessed compared with a conventional fURS, and feasibility studies were performed using a renal phantom. The prototype achieved a 275° omnidirectional maximum bend angle by combining up-down and right-left directions. The bent shape was more compact than the conventional fURS. Thus, the prototype achieved approximately a 1.6-fold larger maximal active bending angle within the restricted environment and a 5.5-fold larger passive bending angle. The crossed control wiring design reduced CWH offset distance by about 75% compared with conventional straight wire routing. The prototype exhibited considerably improved steering performance, exemplified by its ability to access an acutely angled calyx. Our design could improve treatment outcomes and shorten operation times associated with calyceal stone removal.

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.

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.

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.

Comparison of Surgical Outcomes between Single-Use and Reusable Flexible Ureteroscopes for Renal Stone Management: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Background and Objectives: Disposable flexible ureteroscopes have been widely used because of their cost-effectiveness and higher sterility potential compared with reusable flexible ureteroscopes. This study aimed to compare the surgical outcomes and complication rates in patients who undergo reusable or disposable flexible ureteroscopic stone surgeries (fURS) for urinary stone disease. Materials and Methods: A systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted under the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guideline. This systematic review was registered with PROSPERO (CRD42022331291). Clinical trials comparing reusable and disposable fURS for stone disease were found from PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, and the Web of Science up to March 2022. Participants were patients with upper urinary tract stones; the interventions were reusable or disposable fURS. Outcomes, including stone-free rate, operation time, length of hospital stay, and complication rate, were compared for analysis. Results: Overall, 111 studies were identified, but after removing duplicate studies, 75 studies remained. Thirty-two of these studies were excluded. Of the 43 screened studies, 11 met the eligibility criteria. There was no difference in the stone-free rate (SFR) between disposable and reusable fURS (p = 0.14; OR = 1.36; 95% CI, 0.9 to 2.04). For operation time, no difference was identified between reusable and disposable fURS groups (p = 0.12; MD = -5.31; 95% CI, -12.08 to 1.46). For hospital stay, there was also no difference between the two groups (p = 0.61; MD = -0.03; 95% CI, -0.17 to 0.10). There was no significant difference in complication rate between the two groups (p = 0.85; OR = 0.95; 95% CI, 0.56 to 1.61). Conclusions: There were no differences in the SFR, operation time, length of hospital stay, and complication rate between reusable and disposable fURS. Disposable fURS may be a comparable alternative to reusable fURS.

Hybrid flexible ureteroscopy strategy in the management of renal stones - a narrative review

The introduction of single-use flexible ureteroscopes (suFURSs) in daily practice tends to overcome the main limitations of reusable ureteroscopes (reFURSs), in terms of high acquisition costs, maintenance, breakages and repairing costs, reprocessing and sterilization, as retrograde intrarenal surgery (RIRS) is promoted as first-line treatment of renal stones in most cases. A hybrid strategy implies having both instruments in the armamentarium of endourology and choosing the best strategy for cost-efficiency and protecting expensive reusable instruments in selected high-risk for breakage cases such as large stones of the inferior calyx, a steep infundibulopelvic angle or narrow infundibulum, or abnormal anatomy as in horseshoe and ectopic kidney. In terms of safety and efficiency, data present suFURSs as a safe alternative considering operating time, stone-free, and complication rates. An important aspect is highlighted by several authors about reusable instrument disinfection as various pathogens are still detected after proper sterilization. This comprehensive narrative review aims to analyze available data comparing suFURSs and reFURSs, considering economic, technical, and operative aspects of the two types of instruments, as well as the strategy of adopting a hybrid approach to selecting the most appropriate flexible ureteroscope in each case.

WiScope® single use digital flexible ureteroscope versus reusable flexible ureteroscope for management of renal stones: a prospective randomized study

OBJECTIVES

To compare the clinical performance and surgical outcomes of the new digital single use flexible ureteroscope (WiScope^®) with a reusable digital flexible ureteroscope.

PATIENT AND METHODS

Our prospective study includes patients with renal stones less than 2 cm who underwent retrograde flexible ureteroscopy and laser lithotripsy. Patients were randomized into two groups: group A included patients who underwent laser lithotripsy using WiScope^® Single use digital flexible ureteroscope and group B included patients who underwent laser lithotripsy using reusable flexible ureteroscope. Image quality, deflection, ease of insertion, maneuverability, and overall performance were assessed using either a visual analog or Likert scale. Operative outcomes and complications were collected and analyzed in both groups.

RESULTS

A total of 242 patients were included in our study. There were 121 patients in the WiScope^® group and 121 patients in reusable ureteroscope group. The WiScope^® had higher maneuverability (9.3 ± 0.7 vs. 7.2 ± 0.8, P < 0.001) and less limb fatigue but had lower image quality when compared to reusable digital flexible ureteroscope (7.6 ± 0.9 vs. 9.2 ± 0.6, P < 0.001). There were no differences in operative time, complication rates and rates of relook ureteroscopy.

CONCLUSIONS

The WiScope^® single use flexible ureteroscope has comparable outcomes to the reusable flexible ureteroscope with regard to maneuverability, limb fatigue, and deflection. However, it has a lower image quality.

Clinical Evaluation of Single-Use, Fiber-Optic, and Digital Ureterorenoscopes in the Treatment of Kidney Stones

<b><i>Introduction:</i></b> Indication of ureteroscopy for the treatment of urolithiasis has expanded immensely over the last decade. Fiber-optic and digital reusable instruments present the standard in clinical practice, but various newly available single-use devices might offer an exciting alternative. To date, the evidence is limited to clinical evaluation and efficacy of single-use ureteroscopes (URS) compared to standard instruments. Therefore, we evaluate a single-use instrument’s clinical characteristics and efficacy in direct comparison with a fiber-optic and digital device. <b><i>Methods:</i></b> A prospective study was conducted for patients undergoing endoscopic therapy for urolithiasis at a tertiary care center. We evaluated the different instruments’ clinical performance in categories of visibility, the stability of visibility, irrigation flow, and surgeon’s satisfaction. Statistical analyses were performed by SPSS using the Chi-Quadrat and Kruskal-Wallis test. A <i>p</i> value of <i>p</i> ≤ 0.05 was defined as statistically significant. <b><i>Results:</i></b> A total number of 77 patients were included and distributed as follows: 35 (46.7%) single-use, 19 (25.3%) digital, and 23 (28%) fiber-optic URS. Patients’ characteristics were homogenous over the three cohorts in sex, stone amount, and localization. The stone-free rate was equal in all three cohorts (<i>p</i> = 0.31). We identify stability of visibility, irrigation flow, and satisfaction were equal in all cohorts (<i>p</i> = 0.73; <i>p</i> = 0.20; <i>p</i> = 0.20). We report a significant difference in visibility, with 100% rated excellent in the digital URS group (<i>p</i> = 0.028). <b><i>Discussion/Conclusions:</i></b> Single-use URS achieve comparable clinical outcomes with equal stone-free rates in direct comparison with fiber-optic and digital reusable instruments. Accordingly, single-use devices present an adequate alternative for endoscopic therapy of urolithiasis.

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 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.

How to evaluate a flexible ureterorenoscope? Systematic mapping of existing evaluation methods

Objectives

The objective of this study was to identify, map and review scope‐related and user‐related parameters used to evaluate the quality of flexible ureterorenoscopes. Thereby identifying key items and variability in grading systems.

Methods

A literature search of four databases (MEDLINE [Ovid], EMBASE [Ovid], Web of Science, Google scholar and the Cochrane Library) was performed according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta‐Analyses guidelines encompassing articles published up to August 2020. A total of 2386 articles were screened.

Results

A total of 48 articles were included in this systematic scoping review. All studies had a prospective design. Five key items in the assessment of flexible ureterorenoscopy were distinguished: ‘Manoeuvrability’ (87.5%), ‘Optics’ (64.6%), ‘Irrigation’ (56.3%), ‘Handling’ (39.6%) and ‘Durability’ (35.4%). After regrouping, every key item could be divided into specific subcategories. However, the quality assessment showed a wide variation in denomination, method of measurement, circumstances of measurement, tools used during measurements, number of measurements performed, number of observers, and units of outcomes.

Conclusion

The research field regarding quality assessment of ureterorenoscopes is heterogeneous. In this systematic scoping review we identified five key parameters: Manoeuvrability, Optics, Irrigation, Handling and Durability, used to grade flexible ureterorenoscopes. However, within these categories we found a wide variety in terms of method of measurements. A standardised, uniform grading tool is required to assess and compare the quality of flexible ureterorenoscopes in the future.

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.

Single Use (disposable) Duodenoscope: Recent Development and Future

Unlike simple forward-viewing endoscopes such as gastroscope or colonoscope, duodenoscope houses much more complex design to fulfil its function. This design differences leave duodenoscopes more prone to contamination from inadequate disinfection process and potential dissemination of pathogens. Recent reports on dissemination of infection through the duodenoscope mandated an overhaul of duodenoscope utilization including development of a disposable duodenoscope. This article reviews the current state of disposable duodenoscope development, including reported early efficacy as well as its future direction and utilization.

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

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

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

PURPOSE

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

Stone removing efficiency and safety comparison between single use ureteroscope and reusable ureteroscope: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Background

Urologists are gradually beginning to use single-use ureteroscopes (sufURSs), despite a lack of high-level evidence as to their efficacy and safety. This systematic review was registered on PROSPERO (no. CRD42020181808).

Methods

The PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library databases were searched for studies published before October 1, 2020. Jadad score tools were used to evaluate the quality of the included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) was used to evaluate the quality of the included nonrandomized studies. Two researchers independently extracted data according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) principles. A data synthesis was performed using Stata 15.0. Heterogeneity was mainly evaluated with I2 tests. In addition to funnel plots, Egger's and Begg's tests were used to detect publication bias. A sensitivity analysis was also performed. Stone-free rates and postoperative complications were the 2 primary outcomes; operation-time data were also extracted.

Results

Six studies (comprising 887 patients) containing the efficacy data and 5 studies (comprising 952 patients) containing the safety data that were finally included in the quantitative analysis. In relation to stone removal, no significant difference was found in terms of efficacy [Mantel-Haenszel statistic (M-H), relative risk (RR): 1.01, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.96-1.07, P=0.658) or safety (M-H, RR: 1.30, 95% CI: 0.96-1.75, P=0.093) between the sufURS and the reusable flexible ureteroscope (rfURS), and no significant heterogeneity was found. A publication bias was detected in the efficacy comparison; however, the trim-and-fill analysis indicated that the original synthesis results remained stable.

Conclusions

In relation to stone removal, sufURSs were found to be comparable to rfURS, and no compromising complications were found. However, the results should be treated with caution due to limitations related to the small number of studies included in the analysis.

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.

Single-use flexible ureteroscopes: how to choose and what is around the corner?

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

The pace of technology development with single-use endoscopy has led to a range of disposable ureteroscopes. We review the development of single-use scopes, deconstruct the basic design and functional characteristics of available devices, and discuss future directions for next-generation platforms.

RECENT FINDINGS

Currently available devices are differentiated on the basis of several core features. The optical, deflection and irrigation characteristics are marginally different with no device clearly superior in every category. Studies comparing single-use ureteroscopes in patients linked to outcomes are limited. The incorporation of next-generation technologies into these platforms include sensors to monitor intrarenal pressure and temperature, suction of fluid and fragments, and computer vision for artificial intelligence.

SUMMARY

Each ureteroscope has specific features that may be advantageous in different circumstances. Single-use devices could transform the ureteroscope from a visual conduit to a transformative surgical instrument that improves outcomes and reduces complications.

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.

Durability of Digital Flexible Ureteroscope in University Hospital and Ambulatory Surgical Center: Is It Time to Rethink?

Introduction and Objectives: Published literature on damages to a digital flexible ureteroscope (DFU) examines a limited number of ureteroscopes and shows wide variation in its durability. The aim of this study was to compare the primary damage location, causes of DFU damages, and the durability of Karl Storz Flex-Xc digital ureteroscope between University Hospital (UH) and Ambulatory Care Surgery Center (ASC). We also evaluated the available literature on the durability of DFU. Methods: Each damaged DFU prospectively underwent a manufacturer's evaluation to determine the reason for return and primary site of damage. Hospital data on the number of ureteroscopic procedures and damaged DFUs over 3 years were retrospectively reviewed. The possible reason for the damage was classified as either intraoperative or between the procedures. The durability of DFUs, type, and cause of damage were compared between the UH and nonteaching ASC. A chi-square test was utilized for categorical variables. When cell frequencies were <5, Fisher's exact test was used. Results: During the study period, 1211 ureteroscopies were performed and 143 ureteroscopes were returned to the manufacturer. The mean number of uses was 7.45 at the UH and 16.5 at the ASC. The location and cause of damage were similar at both locations. The most common locations of primary damage were at the angle cover (70.6%) and instrument channel (19.2%). Most damage occurred during the handling of the ureteroscopes between surgical procedures (78%). On review of the literature, we found that DFUs were 6 times more durable in a nonteaching hospital. Conclusions: The DFU was more than two times as durable in the ASC as in the UH. Most incidents occurred during handling between surgical procedures. Future research is needed to examine the impact of training and certification of support staff on durability of DFUs.

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.

Retrograde intrarenal surgery: Past, present, and future

With the recent technological advancements in endourology, retrograde intrarenal surgery has become a more popular procedure for treatment of urolithiasis. Furthermore, since the introduction of new laser systems and advanced flexible ureteroscopy with miniaturized ureteroscopes, the treatment indications for retrograde intrarenal surgery have expanded to include not only larger renal stones of >2 cm but also upper urinary tract urothelial carcinoma, ureteral stricture, and idiopathic renal hematuria. Clinicians must keep up with these trends and make good use of these technologies in the rapidly changing field of endourology. Simultaneously, we must consider the risk of various complications including thermal injury due to laser use, ureteral injury caused by the ureteral access sheath, and radiation exposure during retrograde intrarenal surgery with fluoroscopic guidance. This review focuses on the past, present, and future of retrograde intrarenal surgery and provides many topics and clinical options for urologists to consider.

Evaluation of a new disposable flexible ureterorenoscope and comparison to an established disposable flexible ureterorenoscope: a prospective, observational study

PURPOSE

To objectively and subjectively assess the performance and surgical outcomes of the new Innovex EU-scope™ single-use digital flexible ureteroscope (fURS).

METHODS

A prospective cohort study was carried out (August 2019 to May 2020). The new single-use fURS (Innovex Medical Devices Co. Shanghai, China) was analysed with regard to visibility, manoeuvrability, laser interference and overall performance using a validated Likert scale. Outcomes are compared to the LithoVue™ (Boston Scientific, Marlborough, MA).

RESULTS

One hundred patients were included in this study. 50 cases underwent retrograde fURS using the Innovex EU-scope™ and 50 with the LithoVue™. There were no differences in the patient demographics data, or operative data between the two groups. The Innovex EU-scope™ scored higher visibility scores compared to the LithoVue™, median 4, interquartile range (IQR) (4-4), vs. 3.5, IQR (3-5), p = 0.5086. Both scopes had similar manoeuvrability scores. The Innovex EU-scope™ scored significantly lower with regard to comfort compared to the LithoVue, median 4 IQR (3-4) vs. 4.5 IQR (4-5), p = 0.0445. Whereas, laser interference, affected the Innovex much less than the LithoVue™. Both scopes scored well for overall performance. The median overall performance score for the Innovex was 4 IQR (4-4) vs. 4 IQR (4-5).

CONCLUSIONS

This Innovex EU-scope™ has good objective and subjective visibility and manoeuvrability profiles. This single-use flexible ureteroscope may achieve similar clinical outcomes to an established single use instrument.

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.

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.

Novel single-use duodenoscope compared with 3 models of reusable duodenoscopes for ERCP: a randomized bench-model comparison

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Multidrug-resistant infectious outbreaks associated with duodenoscope reuse have been documented internationally. A single-use endoscope could eliminate exogenous patient-to-patient infection associated with ERCP.

METHODS

We conducted a comparative bench simulation study of a new single-use and 3 models of reusable duodenoscopes on a synthetic anatomic bench model. Four ERCP tasks were performed: guidewire locking (single-use and 1 reusable duodenoscope only), plastic stent placement and removal, metal stent placement and removal, and basket sweeping. The study schedule included block randomization by 4 duodenoscopes, 4 tasks, and 2 anatomic model ERCP stations. Ability to complete tasks, task completion times, and subjective ratings of overall performance, navigation/pushability, tip control, and image quality on a scale of 1 (worst) to 10 (best) were compared among duodenoscopes.

RESULTS

All 4 ERCP tasks (total 14 subtasks) were completed by 6 expert endoscopists using all 4 duodenoscopes, with similar task completion times (median, 1.5-8.0 minutes per task) and overall performance ratings by task (median, 8.0-10.0). Navigation/pushability ratings were lower for the single-use duodenoscope than for the 3 reusable duodenoscopes (median, 8.0, 10.0, 9.0, and 9.0, respectively; P < .01). Tip control ratings were similar among all the duodenoscopes (median, 9.0-10.0; P = .77). Image quality ratings were lower for 1 reusable duodenoscope compared with the single-use and other 2 reusable duodenoscopes (median, 8.0, 9.0, 9.0, and 9.0, respectively; P < .01).

CONCLUSIONS

A new single-use duodenoscope was used to simulate 4 ERCP tasks in an anatomic model, with performance ratings and completion times comparable with 3 models of reusable duodenoscopes.

Extracorporeal shock-wave lithotripsy: is it still valid in the era of robotic endourology? Can it be more efficient?

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

The aim of the article is to evaluate the actual role of extracorporeal shock-wave lithotripsy (ESWL) in the management of urolithiasis based on the new developments of flexible ureterorenoscopy (FURS) and percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL).

RECENT FINDINGS

In Western Europe, there is a significant change of techniques used for treatment of renal stones with an increase of FURS and a decrease of ESWL. The reasons for this include the change of indications, technical improvement of the endourologic armamentarium, including robotic assistance. Mostly relevant is the introduction of digital reusable and single-use flexible ureterorenoscopes, whereas micro-PCNL has been abandoned. Some companies have stopped production of lithotripters and novel ideas to improve the efficacy of shock waves have not been implemented in the actual systems. Promising shock-wave technologies include the use of burst-shock-wave lithotripsy (SWL) or high-frequent ESWL. The main advantage would be the very fast pulverization of the stone as shown in in-vitro models.

SUMMARY

The role of ESWL in the management of urolithiasis is decreasing, whereas FURS is constantly progressing. Quality and safety of intracorporeal shock-wave lithotripsy using holmium:YAG-laser under endoscopic control clearly outweighs the advantages of noninvasive ESWL. To regain ground, new technologies like burst-SWL or high-frequent ESWL have to be implemented in new systems.

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

PURPOSE

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

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

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

A comprehensive literature-based equation to compare cost-effectiveness of a flexible ureteroscopy program with single-use versus reusable devices

PURPOSE

To critically review all literature concerning the cost-effectiveness of flexible ureteroscopy comparing single-use with reusable scopes.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A systematic online literature review was performed in PubMed, Embase and Google Scholar databases. All factors potentially affecting surgical costs or clinical outcomes were considered. Prospective assessments, case control and case series studies were included.

RESULTS

741 studies were found. Of those, 18 were duplicated and 77 were not related to urology procedures. Of the remaining 646 studies, 59 were considered of relevance and selected for further analysis. Stone free and complication rates were similar between single-use and reusable scopes. Operative time was in average 20% shorter with digital scopes, single-use or not. Reusable digital scopes seem to last longer than optic ones, though scope longevity is very variable worldwide. New scopes usually last four times more than refurbished ones and single-use ureterorenoscopes have good resilience throughout long cases. Longer scope longevity is achieved with Cidex and if a dedicated nurse takes care of the sterilization process. The main surgical factors that negatively impact device longevity are lower pole pathologies, large stone burden and non-use of a ureteral access sheath. We have built a comprehensive fi nancial costeffective decision model to fl exible ureteroscope acquisition.

CONCLUSIONS

The cost-effectiveness of a fl exible ureteroscopy program is dependent of several aspects. We have developed a equation to allow a literature-based and adaptable decision model to every interested stakeholder. Disposable devices are already a reality and will progressively become the standard as manufacturing price falls.