Single-use versus reusable ureterorenoscopes for retrograde intrarenal surgery (RIRS): systematic comparative analysis of physical and optical properties in three different devices

Deininger, Susanne; Haberstock, Luis; Kruck, Stephan; Neumann, Eva; Costa, Inês Anselmo da; Todenhöfer, Tilman; Bedke, Jens; Stenzl, Arnulf; Rausch, Steffen

doi:10.1007/s00345-018-2365-9

Cited by 20 publications

(35 citation statements)

References 21 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Previous studies have indicated that reusable FURS rated highly in terms of manoeuvrability and image quality (14,15). Clinical studies have indicated that single-use digital FURS performed comparably to current reusable FURS in terms of the SFR, operative time and complication rate (16).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparison of single-use and reusable flexible ureteroscope for renal stone management: a pooled analysis of 772 patients

Chen

Zhu

et al. 2021

Transl Androl Urol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Flexible ureteroscopy is a common therapy for patients with renal calculi. In recent years, the prevalence of single-use flexible ureteroscope (FURS) use has been on the rise. Thus, several trials have been conducted to compare the efficacy between single-use and reusable FURS. The aim of this meta-analysis was to systematically assess the effectiveness and safety of single-use vs. reusable FURS in treating renal stones.PubMed, Web of Science, Cochrane Library and EMBASE were researched to identify relevant studies up to September 2019. Article selection was performed through the search strategy based on Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses criteria. The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale was applied to assess the methodological quality of non-randomized controlled trials, and the methodological quality of randomized controlled trials was evaluated using the Jadad scale. A total of five studies with 772 patients were included in the meta-analysis, including two randomized controlled trials, two single-centre prospective studies, and one prospective case-control trial. The pooled results showed that single-use FURS was associated with a higher stone-free rate (SFR) (OR: 1.50; 95% CI, 1.06-2.12; P=0.02) than reusable FURS.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparison of single-use and reusable flexible ureteroscope for renal stone management: a pooled analysis of 772 patients

Chen

Zhu

et al. 2021

Transl Androl Urol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Due to higher susceptibility to repairs combined with high repair costs for flexible URS devices, it increases the interest in single-use devices. However, the trade-off to using these disposable single-use URS devices is lower image quality [16].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

An Empirical Study on the Operative Treatment of Symptomatic Urolithiasis in Germany

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose: The guidelines of the German, European, and American Urological Associations on urolithiasis advise against general ureteral stenting before and after an uncomplicated ureterorenoscopy (URS). However, German and European guidelines state that stenting prior to URS facilitates stone extraction and reduces intraoperative complications. According to the published literature, German practice seems to deviate from recommendations. This nationwide survey aimed to evaluate the treatment modalities of urolithiasis. Methods: In November 2018 and March 2019, a total of 199 urological hospital departments in Germany were anonymously surveyed about operative care of symptomatic urolithiasis. The response rate was 72.9%. The survey consisted of 25 questions about diagnostics, surgical technique, and aftercare of the URS. This questionnaire is available in the appendix. Results: A primary URS is performed in ≤10% in 49.6% of the hospitals. In every second urological department (49.7%), the German Diagnosis Related Group (G-DRG) system influences the period of pre-stenting before a secondary URS. After a secondary URS, which is performed in 53.8% of the departments in over 80% of the patients, 14% of the departments omit stenting. The standard for stenting seems to be a 28-cm-long 7 Charrière double-J stent in Germany. Conclusion: In Germany, the percentage of primary URS is low, and a ureter stenting is performed in most of the urological departments after URS. Delaying therapy due to economic aspects is the standard in almost half of all urological departments.

show abstract

“…Measurements were performed with a protractor in 14/35 papers [6,10,12,[19][20][21][22]27,31,34,36,43,45,46]. Dragos et al [20], Johnson and Grasso [26], Tom et al [42] and Deininger et al [18] respectively used a ruler, a clockwork with degrees, SolidWorks angle measuring software and an Aristo goniometer to measure deflection. There was a broad range in the number of performed measurements (range 1-198 times), as well as in the number of observers evaluating access (range 1-7 observers).…”

Section: Deflectionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The intensity of the light source while measuring luminosity varied between 50% and 100%. Except for Deininger et al [18], who described using seven observers, no specific number of observers was mentioned. Four studies mentioned the number of measurements that was performed (range 1-5) [11,18,22,35].…”

Section: Opticsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Colour/greyscale Colour assessment was done using a Gretag Macbeth colour checker target card or Greyscale camera contrast chart in an ex vivo setting in six studies (Table 3). Deininger et al [18] used a questionnaire to assess colour/greyscale of high-quality pictures. All studies that reported the number of measurements (two of six), only performed the measurement once [17,21].…”

Section: Luminositymentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

How to evaluate a flexible ureterorenoscope? Systematic mapping of existing evaluation methods

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The objective of this study was to identify, map and review scope-related and user-related parameters used to evaluate the quality of flexible ureterorenoscopes. Thereby identifying key items and variability in grading systems. MethodsA literature search of four databases (MEDLINE [Ovid], EMBASE [Ovid], Web of Science, Google scholar and the Cochrane Library) was performed according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines encompassing articles published up to August 2020. A total of 2386 articles were screened. ResultsA total of 48 articles were included in this systematic scoping review. All studies had a prospective design. Five key items in the assessment of flexible ureterorenoscopy were distinguished: 'Manoeuvrability' (87.5%), 'Optics' (64.6%), 'Irrigation' (56.3%), 'Handling' (39.6%) and 'Durability' (35.4%). After regrouping, every key item could be divided into specific subcategories. However, the quality assessment showed a wide variation in denomination, method of measurement, circumstances of measurement, tools used during measurements, number of measurements performed, number of observers, and units of outcomes. ConclusionThe research field regarding quality assessment of ureterorenoscopes is heterogeneous. In this systematic scoping review we identified five key parameters: Manoeuvrability, Optics, Irrigation, Handling and Durability, used to grade flexible ureterorenoscopes. However, within these categories we found a wide variety in terms of method of measurements. A standardised, uniform grading tool is required to assess and compare the quality of flexible ureterorenoscopes in the future.

show abstract

Single-use versus reusable ureterorenoscopes for retrograde intrarenal surgery (RIRS): systematic comparative analysis of physical and optical properties in three different devices

Cited by 20 publications

References 21 publications

Comparison of single-use and reusable flexible ureteroscope for renal stone management: a pooled analysis of 772 patients

Comparison of single-use and reusable flexible ureteroscope for renal stone management: a pooled analysis of 772 patients

An Empirical Study on the Operative Treatment of Symptomatic Urolithiasis in Germany

How to evaluate a flexible ureterorenoscope? Systematic mapping of existing evaluation methods

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About