Impact of hours worked by a urologist prior to performing ureteroscopy on its safety and efficacy

The efficacy and safety of three different single-use ureteroscopes in retrograde intrarenal surgery: a comparative analysis of a single surgeon's experience in a single center

PURPOSE

To evaluate and compare the clinical results of different single-use flexible ureteroscopes (su-fURS) used in retrograde intrarenal surgery (RIRS).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

RIRS cases performed identically by an experienced surgeon between 2022 and 2023 in a single center were retrospectively analyzed. These surgeries were performed with three su-fURS (Redpine RP-U-C12, Hugemed HU30, and Pusen Uscope 3022 A). In the study, the age, gender, body mass index, and Charlson comorbidity index of the patients were compared, along with their clinical details, such as the stone size, volume, density, location, and history of hydronephrosis or a double J stent or SWL. Operation time, stone-free rates (SFR), perioperative and postoperative complications, and hospitalization times were also compared.

RESULTS

The study included 208 patients. Pusen had 63 cases, Hugemed had 62, and Redpine had 83. The comparison of the patient's demographic and clinical properties with stone-related variables was similar between the groups. The SFR was similar between the groups (p = 0.056). Perioperative, postoperative, and total complication rates and the need for a second intervention showed no significant differences among the three groups (p = 0.324, 0.088, 0.061, and 0.052, respectively).

CONCLUSION

In the first study comparing the clinical results of cases in which different su-fURS were used, no difference was observed in surgical outcomes and complications, even though the technical features of these devices were different. Urologists should select su-fURS based on clinical requirements, financial constraints, and personal experiences.

Systematic Review of the Impact of Physician Work Schedules on Patient Safety with Meta-Analyses of Mortality Risk

Resident physician work hour limits continue to be controversial. Numerous trials have come to conflicting conclusions about the impact on patient safety of eliminating extended duration work shifts. We conducted meta-analyses to evaluate the impact of work hour policies and work schedules on patient safety. After identifying 8,362 potentially relevant studies and reviewing 688 full-text articles, 132 studies were retained and graded on quality of evidence. Of these, 68 studies provided enough information for consideration in meta-analyses. We found that patient safety improved following implementation of the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education's 2003 and 2011 resident physicians work hour guidelines. Limiting all resident physicians to 80-hour work weeks and 28-hour shifts in 2003 was associated with an 11% reduction in mortality (p < 0.001). Limited shift durations and shorter work weeks were also associated with improved patient safety in clinical trials and observational studies not specifically tied to policy changes. Given the preponderance of evidence showing that patient and physician safety is negatively affected by long work hours, efforts to improve physician schedules should be prioritized. Policies that enable extended-duration shifts and long work weeks should be reexamined. Further research should expand beyond resident physicians to additional study populations, including attending physicians and other health care workers.

Single-Use Ureteroscopes

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

The "Body Mass Index" of Flexible Ureteroscopes

OBJECTIVE

To assess the "body mass index" (BMI) (weight and length) of 12 flexible ureteroscopes (digital and fiber optic) along with the light cables and camera heads, to make the best use of our instruments.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Twelve different brand-new flexible ureteroscopes from four different manufacturers, along with eight camera heads and three light cables were evaluated. Each ureteroscope, camera head, and light cable was weighted; the total length of each ureteroscope, shaft, handle, flexible end-tip, and cable were all measured.

RESULTS

According to our measurements (in grams [g]), the lightest ureteroscope was the LithoVue (277.5 g), while the heaviest was the URF-V2 (942.5 g). The lightest fiber optic endoscope was the Viper (309 g), while the heaviest was the Cobra (351.5 g). Taking into account the entirety of the endoscopes, the lightest ureteroscope was the Lithovue and the heaviest was the Wolf Cobra with the Wolf camera "3 CHIP HD KAMERA KOPF ENDOCAM LOGIC HD" (1474 g). The longest ureteroscope was the URF-P6 (101.6 cm) and the shortest was the LithoVue (95.5 cm); whereas the Viper and Cobra had the longest shaft (69 cm) and URF-V had the shortest shaft (67.2 cm). The URF-V2 had the longest flexible end-tip (7.6 cm), while the LithoVue had the shortest end-tip (5.7 cm) in both directions (up/down), while the URF-V had the shortest upward deflection (3.7 cm).

CONCLUSIONS

Newer more versatile digital endoscopes were lighter than their traditional fiber optic counterparts in their entirety, with disposable endoscope having a clear advantage over other reusable ureteroscopes. Knowing the "BMI" of our flexible ureteroscopes is an important information that every endourologist should always take into consideration.