Endoscopic treatment of lower pole stones: is a disposable ureteroscope preferable? Results of a prospective case-control study

Salvadó, José A.; Cabello, José M.; Moreno, Sergio; Cabello, Renato; Olivares, Ruben; Velasco, Alfredo

doi:10.5173/ceju.2019.1962

Cited by 14 publications

(14 citation statements)

References 26 publications

(26 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…After the review of all the original articles, 11 studies related to this meta-analysis were identified ( Figure 1 ) [ 12 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 ]. The characteristics of the 11 included studies are shown in Table 1 [ 12 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 ]. All these comparative studies included patients who underwent fURS for upper ureter and renal stones with reusable or disposable flexible ureterorenoscope.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

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

et al. 2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

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

et al. 2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…There is no consensus in the operative time between single-use FURS and reusable FURS. Although several studies have found that the single-use FURS have the advantage of shorter surgical time ( 22 – 24 ), a series of prospective comparative research between single-use FURS and reusable FURS have found no significant difference in mean operative time between these two surgical devices ( 7 , 17 , 18 , 25 ). As such, a prospective study with larger sample size is needed to confirm the performance of single-use and reusable FURS in terms of operative time.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 98%

Single-Use vs. Reusable Digital Flexible Ureteroscope to Treat Upper Urinary Calculi: A Propensity-Score Matching Analysis

et al. 2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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.

show abstract

“…A total of 287 studies were identified, out of which 28 studies were full-text reviewed and seven studies were eventually selected (16)(17)(18)(19)(20)(21)(22). The screening process is shown in Figure 1.…”

Section: Description Of Studiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Data of OT were reported in six studies (16)(17)(18)(19)(20)(21) including 930 patients. The heterogeneity test results suggested that the heterogeneity among studies is high (I 2 > 50%) and a random effects model was used.…”

Section: Perioperative Outcomes Operative Timementioning

confidence: 99%

Comparison Between Single-Use Flexible Ureteroscope and Reusable Flexible Ureteroscope for Upper Urinary Calculi: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Meng

Peng

et al. 2021

Front. Surg.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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.

show abstract

Endoscopic treatment of lower pole stones: is a disposable ureteroscope preferable? Results of a prospective case-control study

Cited by 14 publications

References 26 publications

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

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

Single-Use vs. Reusable Digital Flexible Ureteroscope to Treat Upper Urinary Calculi: A Propensity-Score Matching Analysis

Comparison Between Single-Use Flexible Ureteroscope and Reusable Flexible Ureteroscope for Upper Urinary Calculi: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About