Comparison of a single-use, digital flexible ureteroscope with a reusable, fiberoptic ureteroscope for management of patients with urolithiasis
https://doi.org/10.4081/aiua.2021.3.326
Accepted: July 25, 2021
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article or claim that may be made by its manufacturer is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.
Objectives: Ureteroscopy is one of the commonest procedures performed to manage urolithiasis. Flexible ureteroscopy has been traditionally based on reusable, fiber-optic ureteroscopes. Technology advancements permitted the development of single-use scopes with digital image. The aim of this study is to compare efficacy and safety between a reusable, fiberoptic ureteroscope with a single-use, digital scope.
Patients and methods: We collected data based on chart review from a prospectively collected database on a tertiary, high-volume hospital in Greece. Baseline, perioperative and postoperative data were gathered and analyzed. Chi-square and Fisher's exact test was used to compare qualitative data and unpaired t-test for continuous data, with a statistical significance set at a = 0.05.
Results: 40 patients underwent flexible ureteroscopy with a single- use digital scope, while 37 with the reusable scope. The two groups were matched regarding baseline characteristics and stone-related parameters. After data analysis, a shorter operative time in favor of single-use flexible ureteroscope was detected (45 vs 65 min, p = 0.001), while safety was also in favor of this type of scope with a significantly higher immediate stonefree rate (70% vs 43%, p = 0.005). Overall complications did not differ between the two groups, although a lower sepsis rate was detected in patients treated with single-use scope.
Conclusions: Our findings indicate that single-use, digital ureteroscopes are a viable alternative for flexible ureteroscopy and management of urolithiasis, especially in centers with deficient facilities for sterilization and ensured funds for more expensive reusable scopes.
Stamatiou K, Karanasiou VI, Lacroix R et al. Prevalence of urolithiasis in rural Thebes, Greece. Rural Remote Health. 2006; 6:610. DOI: https://doi.org/10.22605/RRH610
Scales CD J, Smith AC, Hanley JM, Saigal CS. Prevalence of kidney stones in the United States. Eur Urol. 2012;62:160-165. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2012.03.052
Ghani KR, Sammon JD, Karakiewicz PI, et al. Trends in surgery for upper urinary tract calculi in the USA using the Nationwide Inpatient Sample: 1999-2009. BJU International. 2013; 112:224-230. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/bju.12059
Saigal CS JG, Timilsina AR. Direct and indirect costs of nephrolithiasis in an employed population: opportunity for disease management? Kidney Int. 2005; 68:1808-1814. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1523-1755.2005.00599.x
Shah K MM, Knudsen B. Prospective randomized trial comparing 2 flexible digital ureteroscopes: ACMI/Olympus Invisio DUR-D and Olympus URF-V. Urology. 2015; 85:1267-1271. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urology.2014.12.012
Legemate JD, Kamphuis, G. M., Freund, J. E., et al. Durability of flexible ureteroscopes: a prospective evaluation of longevity, the factors that affect it, and damage mechanisms. Eur Urol Focus. 2019;5:1105-1111. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.euf.2018.03.001
Semins MJ GS, Allaf ME, Matlaga BR. Ureteroscope cleaning and sterilization by the urology operating room team: the effect on repair costs. J Endourol. 2009; 23:903-905. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1089/end.2008.0489
Dale J, Kaplan AG, Radvak D, Shin R, et al. Evaluation of a novel single-use flexible ureteroscope. J Endourol. 2021;35:903-907. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1089/end.2016.0237
Proietti S DL, Molina W, Doizi S, et al. Comparison of new single- use digital flexible ureteroscope versus nondisposable fiber opticand digital ureteroscope in a cadaveric model. J Endourol. 2016;30:655-659. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1089/end.2016.0051
Kartal I, Baylan B, Cakici MC, et al. Comparison of semirigid ureteroscopy, flexible ureteroscopy, and shock wave lithotripsy for initial treatment of 11-20 mm proximal ureteral stones. Arch Ital Urol Androl. 2020; 92:39-44. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4081/aiua.2020.1.39
Epstein L, Hunter JC, Arwady MA, et al. New Delhi metallo-b-lactamase-producing carbapenem-resistant Escherichia coli associated with exposure to duodenoscopes. JAMA. 2014; 312:1447-1455. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2014.12720
Chang CL SL, Lu CM, et al. Outbreak of ertapenem-resistant Enterobacter cloacae urinary tract infections due to a contaminated ureteroscope. J Hosp Infect. 2013; 85:118-24. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhin.2013.06.010
Winship B WD, Carlos E, Li J, et al. Avoiding a lemon: performance consistency of single-use ureteroscopes. J Endourol. 2019;33:127-131. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1089/end.2018.0805
Healy KA PR, Cleary RC, Colon-Herdman A, Bagley DH. Hand problems among endourologists. J Endourol. 2011; 25:1915-1920. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1089/end.2011.0128
Proietti S, Somani B, Sofer, et al. The "Body Mass Index" of flexible ureteroscopes. J Endourol. 2017;31:1090-1095. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1089/end.2017.0438
Somani BK, Al-Qahtani SM, de Medina SD, Traxer O. Outcomes of flexible ureterorenoscopy and laser fragmentation for renal stones: comparison between digital and conventional ureteroscope. Urology. 2013;82:1017-1019. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urology.2013.07.017
Mager R KM, Höfner T, Frees S, et al. Clinical outcomes and costs of reusable and single-use flexible ureterorenoscopes: a prospective cohort study. Urolithiasis. 2018; 46:587-593. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00240-018-1042-1
Kam J, Yuminaga Y, Beattie K, et al. Single use versus reusable digital flexible ureteroscopes: A prospective comparative study. Int J Urol. 2019; 26: 999-1005. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/iju.14091
Skolarikos A, Gross AJ, Krebs A, et al. Outcomes of flexible ureterorenoscopy for solitary renal stones in the CROES URS Global Study. J Urol. 2015; 194:137-143. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2015.01.112
Kourambas J DF, Munver R, Preminger GM. Nitinol stone retrieval-assisted ureteroscopic management of lower pole renal calculi. Urology. 2000; 56:935-939. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0090-4295(00)00821-9
Hollenbeck BK ST, Faerber GJ, Wolf JS. Flexible ureteroscopy in conjunction with in situ lithotripsy for lower pole calculi. Urology. 2001; 58:859-863. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0090-4295(01)01500-X
Jung H NB, Osther PJ. Retrograde intrarenal stone surgery for extracorporeal shock-wave lithotripsy-resistant kidney stones. Scand J Urol Nephrol. 2006; 40:380-384. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/00365590600679269
El-Nahas AR IH, Youssef RF, Sheir KZ. Flexible ureterorenoscopy versus extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy for treatment of lower pole stones of 10-20 mm. BJU International. 2012; 110:898-902. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1464-410X.2012.10961.x
PAGEPress has chosen to apply the Creative Commons Attribution NonCommercial 4.0 International License (CC BY-NC 4.0) to all manuscripts to be published.
Downloads
Citations
