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

Single-use flexible ureteroscopes: practice patterns, attitudes, and preferences for next-generation concepts

Background

Single use flexible ureteroscopes (su-fURS) have emerged as an alternative to reusable flexible ureteroscopes (r-fURS) for the management of upper urinary tract calculi. However, little is known about urologist usage and attitudes about this technology. Through a worldwide survey of endourologists, we assessed practice patterns and preferences for su-fURS.

Methods

An online questionnaire was sent to Endourology Society members in January 2021. The survey explored current su-fURS practice patterns, reasons for/against adoption, and preferences for next generation models including developments in imaging, intra-renal pressure, heat generation, and suction. Responses were collected through QualtricsXM over a 1-month period from surgeons in North America, Latin America, Europe, Asia, Africa, and Oceania. The study was conducted according to the Checklist for Reporting Results of Internet E-Surveys (CHERRIES).

Results

208 (13.9%) members responded to the survey. Most respondents (53.8%) performed >100 ureteroscopies per year. 77.9% of all respondents used su-fURS for less than half of all procedures while only 2.4% used su-fURS for every procedure. 26.0% had never used a su-fURS. Overall, usage was not influenced by a surgeon's geographic region, practice environment, or years of experience. Top reasons for not adopting su-fURS were cost (59.1%) and environmental impact (12.5%). The most desired improvements in design were smaller outer shaft size (19.4%), improved optics and vision (15.9%), and wireless connectivity (13.6%). For next generation concepts, the functions most commonly described as essential or important by respondents was the ability to suction fragments (94.3%) while the function most commonly noted as not important or unnecessary was incorporation of a temperature sensor (40.4%).

Conclusions

su-fURS are not commonly used, even among urologists who perform a high number of fURS. The primary concern for adoption is cost and environmental impact. Suction capability was considered the most important future development.

In vitro comparison of simulated intrapelvic pressure in an artificial kidney model during retrograde intrarenal surgery among various single-use ureteroscopes

OBJECTIVES

This study compares intrapelvic pressure (IPP) during retrograde intrarenal surgery with various single-use flexible ureteroscopes (f-URS) in an artificial kidney model.

METHODS

We created an artificial kidney model with a pressure sensor using a bladder evacuation device. The model was completely closed and the only backflow was on the side of the ureteroscope inside the ureteral access sheath (UAS). We tested five single-use f-URSs (LithoVue, Wiscope, PU3022A, PU3033A, and AXIS) with six different types of UAS (9.5/11.5-14/16 Fr). Using the automatic irrigation system, 30 s of irrigation was performed at various pressures (40-180 mmHg) and steady-state IPP was recorded. IPP was compared between the five single-use f-URSs. IPP cutoff value was determined at 30 mmHg. The diameter of the endoscope tip and the curved and shaft parts were also measured and recorded.

RESULTS

The diameters of all parts were significantly different between single-use f-URSs. The maximum IPP tended to be higher in ureteroscopes with larger diameters of the proximal parts (curved part/shaft part). In LithoVue and Uscope PU3022A f-URSs, the maximum IPP did not exceed 30 mmHg when UAS ≥12/14 Fr was used. In AXIS and Wiscope f-URSs, it did not exceed the cutoff value when the UAS ≥11/13 Fr was used. In Uscope PU3033A f-URS, it did not exceed 30 mmHg when the UAS ≥10/12 Fr was used.

CONCLUSIONS

Maximum IPP tended to be higher in f-URSs with larger diameters of the proximal part and the appropriate size of the UAS differed between various single-use f-URSs.

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.

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.