Mp68-06 Are Post-Operative Ureteric Catheters a Safe Alternative to Short-Dwell Ureteric Stents?

Abstract

LithoVue outperformed the PU3022 in visibility rating, p¼0.003. There was also a significant difference in the maneuverability (out of 5) of the ureterorenoscopes, p<0.001. Both the URF-V2 (4.8, 95% CI 4.7-5) and LithoVue (4.7, 95% CI 4.5-4.8) outperformed the PU3022 (4.2, 95% CI 4.0-4.3), p¼0.001 and p<0.001 respectively. There was no difference between the URF-V2 and LithoVue, p¼0.27. There was no difference in the clearance rate of renal calculi, 86% (LithoVue), 87% (Olympus), 93% (Pusen), p¼0.2. Scope failures occurred in 1 LithoVue (deflection control mechanism broke), 2 Olympus URF-V2 (Deflection mechanism did not work and tension wire for deflection mechanism broke) and 2 Pusen PU3022 (image failed to load onto machine). One benefit noted with the Pusen PU3022 scope over the LithoVue was the lack of screen lag.CONCLUSIONS: Our study is the first to directly compare two different single use, digital flexible ureterorenoscopes. Our study shows that the performance of single use ureterorenoscopes is approaching that of the reusable video, ureterorenoscopes. In the era of multiresistant organisms and increasing concern over current sterilizing techniques for fragile ureterorenoscopes, the single use ureterorenoscopes are an increasingly feasible alternative to traditional, expensive, reusable ureterorenoscopes.Source of Funding: Five Boston Scientific LithoVue and five Pusen PU3022 ureterorenoscopes were provided by their respective companies for this study.