Single-use Flexible Ureteroscopes Research Articles

Assessment of the economic relevance of the use of single-use digital flexible ureteroscopes

Introduction: Breakages and repairs related to flexible digital reusable ureteroscopes (flURS) are expensive. Thus, we aimed to assess the cost-effectiveness of single-use flexible digital ureteroscopes (SUDFU). Methods: We conducted a literature review on MEDLINE and EMBASE until September 19, 2018. Systematic reviews and guidelines were assessed for methodologic quality by using standardized grids (R-AMSTAR and AGREE-II). Original studies were analyzed according to local customized grids. The CAPS (Critical Appraisal Skills Program) tool enabled the assessment of the economic aspects in the literature. We also collected local data over a year in 2017–2018 and conducted an economic evaluation by cost minimization, comparing SUDFU and flURS in our center. By generating different flURS breakage reduction scenarios, we aimed to demonstrate the budgetary impact that would have SUFDU introduction in our center. Results: Five economic studies were included. Data on flURS showed breakage rates between 6.4% and 13.2%, and mean numbers of interventions before breakage between 7.5 and 14.4. Four of the five economic analyses suggested a higher cost per intervention with SUDFU. Our local data demonstrated similar results (6.4% and 11.8 cases) and enabled us to estimate the annual number of ureteroscopies for which SUDFU would become profitable: 11–26 (depending on the chosen device). Furthermore, we illustrated how selective use of SUFDU can reduce annual costs by avoiding breakages in different scenarios. Conclusions: The mean cost per intervention with SUDFU is usually higher than with flURS in high-volume centers and exclusive use becomes unprofitable from a small number of cases.

In vitro Comparison of the Mechanical and Optical Characteristics of 5 Disposable Flexible Ureteroscopes

Introduction: Disposable (single-use) flexible ureteroscopes are alternatives to reusable ureteroscopes. With their superior surgical efficacy and safety in the presence of upper urinary calculi, disposable ureteroscopes aim to overcome the main limitations of conventional reusable ureteroscopes. However, studies on the performance of the most recently developed models of single-use flexible ureteroscopes are scarce. This study aimed to compare the in vitro performance of several recently introduced, single-use, flexible ureteroscopes. Methods: Five disposable flexible ureteroscopes were tested in vitro to evaluate their mechanical and optical characteristics. To this end, their degrees of deflection, irrigation flow rates, and image qualities were investigated. The models examined were Innovex US31-B12, OTU-100RR, Redpine RP-U-C12, Sciavita SUV-2A-B, and Seplou URS3016E. Their performance was also compared with that of a reusable flexible ureteroscope, Olympus URV-F. Results: The OTU device had the highest degrees of deflection and the smallest loop diameter of the disposable ureteroscopes. The single-use ureteroscopes had identical image resolutions at a distance of 1 cm. The Innovex and Redpine devices had the best color representation. Conclusions: Of the tested disposable ureteroscopes, the OTU device had the best mechanical attributes, given its small loop diameter, high deflection angles, and low irrigation flow loss. As to their optical properties, the resolutions of all 5 single-use models were identical at an image distance of 1 cm.

Recent advances in the treatment of renal stones using flexible ureteroscopys.

Upper urinary tract stones are a common urological disease that can be treated by flexible ureteroscopy (FURS) through the natural urinary tract, in addition to extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy and percutaneous nephrolithotomy. The advantages of FURS are less trauma, faster recovery, and fewer complications, while its disadvantages include poor results of lithotripsy and stone extraction when dealing with larger stones, and prolonged operation time. Over the last two decades, the emergence of new technologies such as FURS combined with negative pressure suction, robot-assisted FURS, and artificially intelligent FURS, coupled with improvements in laser technology (the use of thulium fiber lasers and the invention of single-use flexible ureteroscopes (su-fURS) suitable for primary level application, have significantly increased the global adoption of FURS. This surge in usage holds a promising future in clinical application, benefiting a growing number of patients with renal calculi. Accompanied by changes in technical concepts and therapeutic modalities, the scope of indications for FURS is broadening, positioning it as a potential primary choice for urolithiasis treatment in the future. This review outlines the progress in employing FURS for the treatment of renal calculi in order to generate insights for further research.

Single-use flexible ureteroscopes: practice patterns, attitudes, and preferences for next-generation concepts.

Single use flexible ureteroscopes (su-fURS) have emerged as an alternative to reusable flexible ureteroscopes (r-fURS) for the management of upper urinary tract calculi. However, little is known about urologist usage and attitudes about this technology. Through a worldwide survey of endourologists, we assessed practice patterns and preferences for su-fURS. An online questionnaire was sent to Endourology Society members in January 2021. The survey explored current su-fURS practice patterns, reasons for/against adoption, and preferences for next generation models including developments in imaging, intra-renal pressure, heat generation, and suction. Responses were collected through QualtricsXM over a 1-month period from surgeons in North America, Latin America, Europe, Asia, Africa, and Oceania. The study was conducted according to the Checklist for Reporting Results of Internet E-Surveys (CHERRIES). 208 (13.9%) members responded to the survey. Most respondents (53.8%) performed >100 ureteroscopies per year. 77.9% of all respondents used su-fURS for less than half of all procedures while only 2.4% used su-fURS for every procedure. 26.0% had never used a su-fURS. Overall, usage was not influenced by a surgeon's geographic region, practice environment, or years of experience. Top reasons for not adopting su-fURS were cost (59.1%) and environmental impact (12.5%). The most desired improvements in design were smaller outer shaft size (19.4%), improved optics and vision (15.9%), and wireless connectivity (13.6%). For next generation concepts, the functions most commonly described as essential or important by respondents was the ability to suction fragments (94.3%) while the function most commonly noted as not important or unnecessary was incorporation of a temperature sensor (40.4%). su-fURS are not commonly used, even among urologists who perform a high number of fURS. The primary concern for adoption is cost and environmental impact. Suction capability was considered the most important future development.

Стерилизация одноразовых гибких уретероскопов: мифы и реальность.

Introduction. Retrograde flexible ureteroscopy is the most safe and effective method of treatment of patients with kidney stones and urothelial tumors. Since 2017, disposable flexible ureteroscopes (URS) have been introduced into clinical practice. Single use scopes are equal in visualization and usability to reusable ones, and there is no need for complex maintenance. However, the cost of disposable endoscopes remains relatively high for clinics in developing countries, prompting many specialists to sterilize the disposable device and then reuse it again. Materials and Methods. Seven disposable flexible URS, after bi- and unilateral ureteropyeloscopy were sterilized according to the standard for reusable instruments immediately after surgery. After a complete sterilization cycle, samples were taken from various surfaces (insertion part, handle, control lever, port of the working channel, port of the irrigation channel, flush from the working channel) for bacteriological investigation. Results. Bacterial growth was detected on all flexible URS included in the study. All detected bacterial species belonged to the cutaneous bacterial microflora. The most frequently contaminated parts of the endoscope were the handle (n=4), the control lever (n=3) and the outer surface of the inserted part of the endoscope (n=2). Conclusions. Every single-use flexible URS that underwent a complete sterilization cycle was found to be contaminated with bacteria. Despite the technical feasibility, reuse of disposable instruments may be potentially harmful to the patient.

Single-Use Flexible Ureteroscopes: How Difficult Is It Today to Stay Up to Date? A Pictorial Review of Instruments Available in Europe in 2023.

The invention of the flexible ureteroscope (fURS) and its subsequent spread have revolutionized the surgical management of urolithiasis and upper tract urothelial carcinoma (UTUC). During the last few years, single-use flexible ureteroscopes (su-fURSs) have been developed to improve the limitations of reusable fURSs, namely their cost, durability and risk of device contamination. Since the introduction of the first fully disposable digital fURS, several su-fURSs have been developed by various manufacturers. In this pictorial review, we combined the different physical and technical features of su-fURSs currently available on the market with Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and European Conformity (CE) approval, in order to help surgeons choose the appropriate device according to each case requirement and personal preferences. To the best of our knowledge, 17 su-fURSs with CE and FDA approval have been developed to date.

In vitro comparison of simulated intrapelvic pressure in an artificial kidney model during retrograde intrarenal surgery among various single-use ureteroscopes.

This study compares intrapelvic pressure (IPP) during retrograde intrarenal surgery with various single-use flexible ureteroscopes (f-URS) in an artificial kidney model. We created an artificial kidney model with a pressure sensor using a bladder evacuation device. The model was completely closed and the only backflow was on the side of the ureteroscope inside the ureteral access sheath (UAS). We tested five single-use f-URSs (LithoVue, Wiscope, PU3022A, PU3033A, and AXIS) with six different types of UAS (9.5/11.5-14/16 Fr). Using the automatic irrigation system, 30 s of irrigation was performed at various pressures (40-180 mmHg) and steady-state IPP was recorded. IPP was compared between the five single-use f-URSs. IPP cutoff value was determined at 30 mmHg. The diameter of the endoscope tip and the curved and shaft parts were also measured and recorded. The diameters of all parts were significantly different between single-use f-URSs. The maximum IPP tended to be higher in ureteroscopes with larger diameters of the proximal parts (curved part/shaft part). In LithoVue and Uscope PU3022A f-URSs, the maximum IPP did not exceed 30 mmHg when UAS ≥12/14 Fr was used. In AXIS and Wiscope f-URSs, it did not exceed the cutoff value when the UAS ≥11/13 Fr was used. In Uscope PU3033A f-URS, it did not exceed 30 mmHg when the UAS ≥10/12 Fr was used. Maximum IPP tended to be higher in f-URSs with larger diameters of the proximal part and the appropriate size of the UAS differed between various single-use f-URSs.

Single Specialty–Operated Renal Stone Removal: Initial Experience from 3 Interventional Radiology Centers

This retrospective analysis of the feasibility and safety of percutaneous renal stone removal using single-use flexible ureteroscopes was conducted at 3 academic centers. Twelve patients (58% men) underwent 14 percutaneous renal stone removal procedures between December 2021 and March 2023. All patients experienced symptom improvement and resolution of obstruction after stone removal. The procedural success rate was 92%. Only 1 patient required an additional stone removal procedure. No major adverse events occurred during or after the procedures. The percutaneous nephrostomy removal rate was 92%, with a median tube removal time of 5 weeks. The median procedural and pulsed fluoroscopy times were 106.5 and 16.3 minutes, respectively. Preliminary findings demonstrated that percutaneous renal stone removal using single-use endoscopes by interventional radiologists is feasible and safe.

Predicting Urinary Stone Composition in Single-Use Flexible Ureteroscopic Images with a Convolutional Neural Network.

Background and Objectives: Analysis of urine stone composition is one of the most important factors in urolithiasis treatment. This study investigated whether a convolutional neural network (CNN) can show decent results in predicting urinary stone composition even in single-use flexible ureterorenoscopic (fURS) images with relatively low resolution. Materials and Methods: This study retrospectively used surgical images from fURS lithotripsy performed by a single surgeon between January 2018 and December 2021. The ureterorenoscope was a single-use flexible ureteroscope (LithoVue, Boston Scientific). Among the images taken during surgery, a single image satisfying the inclusion and exclusion criteria was selected for each stone. Cases were divided into two groups according to whether they contained any calcium oxalate (the Calcium group) or none (the Non-calcium group). From 506 total cases, 207 stone surface images were finally included in the study. In the CNN model, the transfer learning method using Resnet-18 as a pre-trained model was used, and only endoscopic digital images and stone classification data were input to achieve minimally supervised learning. Results: There were 175 cases in the Calcium group and 32 in the Non-calcium group. After training and validation, the model was tested using the test set, and the total accuracy was 81.8%. Recall and precision of the test results were 88.2% and 88.2% in the Calcium group and 60.0% and 60.0% in the Non-calcium group, respectively. The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of the model, which represents its classification performance, was 0.82. Conclusions: Single-use flexible ureteroscopes have financial benefits but low vision quality compared with reusable digital flexible ureteroscopes. As far as we know, this is the first artificial intelligence study using single-use fURS images. It is meaningful that the CNN performed well even under these difficult conditions because these results can further expand the possibilities of its use.

Single-Use Ureteroscopy and Environmental Footprint: Review of Current Evidence.

Ureteroscopy is a well-established treatment modality for kidney and ureteric calculi in addition to playing a key role in upper tract cancer diagnostics. Traditional reusable flexible ureteroscopes are technologically advanced and expensive pieces of equipment that require repeat sterilisation and periodical repair. These issues have led to the development of single-use flexible ureteroscopes that are disposed of after each case. Whilst this may be advantageous in many respects, the environmental impact of such technology is yet to be fully determined. The aim of this review is to therefore identify and summarise the available literature concerning the environmental footprint of single-use ureteroscopy. To identify the latest research on this topic, a systematic search of world literature was conducted using the Medline, Embase, and PsycINFO databases. PRISMA guidelines were followed and articles were assessed by all authors and relevant study results were included in a narrative format. Only one relevant article was identified and included. This study found that a single-use flexible ureteroscope (LithoVueTM by Boston Scientific) generated an equivalent amount of carbon dioxide per case to a contemporary reusable flexible ureteroscope. Literature concerning the environmental footprint of single-use ureteroscopy is worryingly lacking. No conclusions can be definitively drawn from a single study and further research is imperative given the global climate crisis and the significant contribution that healthcare services have to the environmental problem.

Comparison of Flexible Ureteroscope Performance between Reusable and Single-Use Models.

Single-use flexible ureteroscopes for urinary retention have been developed in recent years as an alternative to reusable ureteroscopes in order to eliminate the risk of cross-infections and to solve the primary limitations of traditional reusable flexible ureteroscopes for urinary retention. In this study, we evaluated and contrasted three of the most recent types of flexible ureteroscopes, including two digital reusable versions (Olympus URF-V and Olympus URF-V2) and one single-use model (Pusen Medi-calUscope UE3022), in both ex vivo and in vivo scenarios. The influence of a variety of instruments on the flow of irrigation and its deflection was investigated ex vivo. In the in vivo investigation, a total of 40 patients were treated with retrograde fURS utilizing URF-V, 20 patients were treated with URF-V2, and 20 patients were treated with single-use fURS. The visibility and maneuverability of each fURS were evaluated by the same urologist during the procedures, and the results were compared. Intraoperatively, we compared the image quality of reusable (URF-V and URF-V2) and single-use fURS USCOPE UE3022 cameras and found that there was no statistically significant difference between the two types of camera. The score for maneuverability was the same (4.2) regardless of whether we used the UscopeUE3022 or the URF-V2, but it was significantly lower (3.8, p = 0.03) when we utilized the URF-V. Irrigation was about the same when utilizing reused scopes, whereas employing a single-use scope was more than fifty percent more effective. The findings of our research indicate that reusable and single-use fURs have visibility and maneuverability characteristics that are at least comparable to one another. The possibilities of the single-use type in terms of irrigation flow and deflection are superior.

Comparison of single-use flexible ureteroscopes with a reusable ureteroscope for the management of paediatric urolithiasis

To compare the efficacy, side effects, and cost-effectiveness between a single-use digital flexible ureteroscope and a reusable flexible ureteroscope in the treatment of paediatric renal stones. This analytic, case-control, monocentric study included all patients undergoing flexible ureterosopies for stone treatment. Between April 2016 and February 2019, a reusable (Flex-XC®, Karl Storz) flexible ureteroscope was used (control group), whereas a single-use (Uscope®, PUSEN Medical©) flexible ureteroscope was used in all procedures from March 2019 to April 2021. Clinical and procedural outcomes, operative times, complication rates, hospital stay, and costs per procedure were evaluated. Forty-three cases using a reusable flexible ureteroscope and thirty-nine using a single-use flexible ureteroscope were included in the study. Demographic patient characteristics, stone burden, location and composition, preoperative presence of a double-J stent, procedural outcomes, mean length of postoperative hospital stay, and complications (4.6% versus 5%, p=0.81) were comparable between the two groups. Median operative duration for stone removal was 93min (20-170) with reusable versus 81min (55-107) with the single-use scope (p=0.18). Scope failure occurred four times with the reusable scope and in no case with the single-use. The total cost per procedure associated with the use of single-use scopes (798 Euros) was lower than a reusable scope (1483.23 Euros). Single-use flexible ureteroscopes were created to bypass the problems incurred when reusable scopes were damaged and therefore not available for use in surgical procedures. Single-use flexible ureteroscopes are always immediately available and ready to be used, even in urgent cases, as they typically do not require maintenance or sterilization. Compared with their reusable counterparts, single-use flexible ureteroscopes have similar digital performance (270°), image quality and we found no difference in the success and complication rates. Cost analysis of a reusable flexible ureteroscope must consider the purchase price, maintenance and repair costs, and decontamination costs (including handling, detergent, bacterial culture, transportation, and storage costs). In contrast, only purchase price is included in cost analysis for single-use flexible ureteroscopes. Our study suggests that single-use flexible ureteroscopes may be associated with lower costs per procedure than their reusable counterparts. Single-use flexible ureteroscopes are an interesting alternative to their reusable counterparts, particularly in terms of material resource management. Cost analyses conducted using a low volume of cases representative of a paediatric urology division favour the use of single-use ureteroscopes.

Симультанная билатеральная ретроградная интраренальная хирургия c использованием тулиевого волоконного лазера.

Introduction. Urolithiasis is a common disease and up to 15% of patients have multiple kidney stones. Retrograde intrarenal surgery (RIRS) can be used in the surgical treatment of kidney stones because this method is highly effective. Patients with multiple kidney stones often necessitate several surgeries. In this study we our own experience of bilateral RIRS to analyze its effectiveness and safety. Materials and methods. From January 2021 to February 2022 the simultaneous bilateral RIRS were performed to 11 patients (7 man and 4 woman). The maximal size of stone was 21 mm (the average size of the right kidney was 15,0 mm ± 6,0 mm and the left kidney – 11,7 mm ± 4,3 mm). Average stone density was more than 1000 HU. The mean age of the patients was 57±13 years. Bilateral retrograde intrarenal surgery was performed simultaneously by two surgeons using flexible ureteroscopes using a SuperPulsed thulium fiber laser. The following parameters were assessed: surgical intervention time; stone free rate (SFR); degree of ureteral injury according to the post-ureteroscopic lesion scale (PULS); the need for drainage of the ureter in the postoperative period, assessment of the creatinine level, glomerular filtration rate (GFR) and C-reactive protein in the postoperative period; postoperative complications according to the Clavien-Dindo classification. Results and their discussion. The average duration of the surgery was 56±11 minutes. The SFR level was 90,9 %. At the final inspection of the ureters: on the right side injury Grade 0 according to the PULS scale was recorded in 10 patients, Grade 1 – in 2 patients; on the left side Grade 0 – in 9 patients, Grade 1 – in 2 patients. The surgery was completed with the installation of ureteral catheters in 10 and 9 cases on the right and left sides, respectively. Three surgical interventions ended with the installation of ureteral stents on one side or another. The level of creatinine and C-reactive protein in the postoperative period increased on average by 10.2±5.7 μmol/l and 1.8±0.6 mg/l, respectively. The GFR decreased by 7.2 ± 2.6 ml/min. A complication was registered in 1 patient – increased body temperature on the 1st day, stopped by antibiotic therapy (Clavien-Dindo II). Conclusions. Simultaneous bilateral RIRS using single-use flexible ureteroscopes and a SuperPulsed thulium fiber laser is a safe and effective procedure for patients with bilateral nephrolithiasis.

Microdamage analysis of single-use flexible ureteroscope immediately after lithotripsy use

This prospective ex vivo study investigated microdamage to single-use flexible ureteroscopes (fURS) after ureteroscopy and endoscopic combined intrarenal surgery (ECIRS). The performance of 30 WiScope devices (OTU Medical, San Jose, CA, USA) was examined immediately after use, dividing them into three equal groups: ureteroscopy and ECIRS in the prone and supine positions. The overall scope of microdamage assessment included the scope deflection, bending radius, resolution, and water flow rate. Additionally, we analyzed the association between scope status and surgical parameters. The deflection, bending radius, and resolution remained similarly above the thresholds in all groups. However, the water flow rate was below the threshold in seven scopes (70%) in the ureteroscopy group and none in the ECIRS groups (P = 0.001). Univariate and multivariable logistic regression analyses demonstrated that basket wire catheter use was associated with an increased risk for overall scope microdamage (odds ratio [OR], 22.70; P = 0.006 and OR, 22.40; P = 0.019, respectively). Stone size, total laser energy, and surgical position were not associated with a risk for scope microdamage. In conclusion, ureteroscopy was more closely associated with scope damage than ECIRS, and basket wire catheter use seemed to inflict more damage to the fURS.

Hybrid flexible ureteroscopy strategy in the management of renal stones - a narrative review.

The introduction of single-use flexible ureteroscopes (suFURSs) in daily practice tends to overcome the main limitations of reusable ureteroscopes (reFURSs), in terms of high acquisition costs, maintenance, breakages and repairing costs, reprocessing and sterilization, as retrograde intrarenal surgery (RIRS) is promoted as first-line treatment of renal stones in most cases. A hybrid strategy implies having both instruments in the armamentarium of endourology and choosing the best strategy for cost-efficiency and protecting expensive reusable instruments in selected high-risk for breakage cases such as large stones of the inferior calyx, a steep infundibulopelvic angle or narrow infundibulum, or abnormal anatomy as in horseshoe and ectopic kidney. In terms of safety and efficiency, data present suFURSs as a safe alternative considering operating time, stone-free, and complication rates. An important aspect is highlighted by several authors about reusable instrument disinfection as various pathogens are still detected after proper sterilization. This comprehensive narrative review aims to analyze available data comparing suFURSs and reFURSs, considering economic, technical, and operative aspects of the two types of instruments, as well as the strategy of adopting a hybrid approach to selecting the most appropriate flexible ureteroscope in each case.

An in vitro Comparative Assessment of Single-Use Flexible Ureteroscopes Using a Standardized Ureteroscopy Training Model

Introduction: Perceived benefits like decreased contamination rates and reduced postoperative incidence of complications after urolithiasis surgery have led to increased adoption of single-use flexible ureteroscopes (su-fURS). Using a validated, standardized simulator model with enhanced “fluoroscopic” capabilities, we performed an in vitro comparative assessment of four commercially available models of su-fURS. Both objective and subjective parameters were assessed in this study. Methods: Two standardized tasks, (1) exploration of the model’s kidney collecting system and (2) repositioning of a stone fragment from the upper renal to lower renal pole were assigned to participants, who performed these tasks on all four scopes. Four models of su-fURS (Boston LithoVue, PUSEN PU3033A, REDPINE, INNOVEX EU-ScopeTM) were assessed, with task timings as end-points for objective analysis. Cumulative “fluoroscopic” time was also recorded as a novel feature of our enhanced model. Post-task questionnaires evaluating specific components of the scopes were distributed to document subjective ratings. Results: Both subjective and objective performances (except stone repositioning time) across all four su-fURS demonstrated significant differences. However, objective performance (task timings) did not reflect subjective scope ratings by the participants (Rs < 0.6). Upon Kruskal-Wallis H test with post hoc analyses, REDPINE and INNOVEX EU-ScopeTM were the preferred su-fURS as rated by the participants, with overall scope scores of 9.00/10 and 9.57/10. Conclusions: Using a standardized in vitro simulation model with enhanced fluoroscopic capabilities, we demonstrated both objective and subjective differences between models of su-fURS. However, variations in perception of scope features (visibility, image quality, deflection, maneuverability, ease of stone retrieval) did not translate into actual technical performance. Eventually, the optimal choice of su-fURS fundamentally lies in individual surgeon preference, as well as cost-related factors.

Single-use flexible ureteroscopes: update and perspective in developing countries. A narrative review.

ABSTRACTFlexible ureteroscopy is a well-established method for treatment of urinary stones but flexible ureteroscopes are expensive and fragile devices with a very limited lifetime. Since 2006 with the advent of digital flexible ureteroscopes a great evolution has occurred. The first single-use flexible ureteroscope was launched in 2011 and new models are coming to the market. The aim of this article is to review the characteristics of these devices, compare their results with the reusable devices and evaluate the cost-benefits of adopting single-use flexible ureteroscopes in developing countries.Materials and Methods:an extensive review of articles listed at PubMed and published between 2000 and 2021 was performed.Results:Single-use flexible ureteroscopes have a shaft with 65 to 68cm length and weight between 119 and 277g. Their deflection goes up to 300 degrees. Their stone-free rates vary between 60 and 95% which is comparable to reusable scopes and operative times ranges from 54 to 86 minutes which are lower when compared to reusable flexible scopes. Their costs vary between 800 and 3180 US dollars.Conclusion:single-use flexible ureteroscopes are lighter and have superior quality of image when compared to fiberoptic ones. There are no definite data showing a higher stone-free rate or less complications with the use of single-use flexible ureteroscopes. Each institution must perform a cost-benefit analysis before making the decision of adopting or not such devices depending on the local circumstances.

Can the introduction of single-use flexible ureteroscopes increase the longevity of reusable flexible ureteroscopes at a high volume centre?

To assess whether the introduction of single use flexibles ureteroscopes (su-fURS) at our high-volume centre had an advantageous impact on the turn-over and breakage rates of reusable fURS (re-fURS). We analysed re-fURS number of usages and breakages at our centre between February 2015 and December 2018. We recorded the number of usages for analysed scope between the first usage until a breakage requiring reconditioning. Usage count was restarted following each reconditioning episode. Since su-fURS (Lithovue, Boston Scientific, USA) were introduced at our center in September 2016, we had the chance to compare different re-fURS life cycles according to both su-fURS availability and usage intensity (i.e., number of su-fURS used during each re-fURS life cycle). We then explored the relationship between su-fURS usage intensity and reusable scope survival (i.e., number of utilizations before any breakage requiring reconditioning) using locally weighted scatterplot smoothing (LOWESS) approach. Five different re-fURSs were employed at our centre, for a total of 1820 usages and 40 breakages requiring reconditioning. The overall mean (SD) number of usages before breaking was 40 (22). After su-fURS introduction, mean (SD) re-fURS number of usages increased from 35 (22) to 49 (20), (+ 40%, p = 0.02). The relationship between su-fURS usage intensity and reusable scopes survival showed a linear survival increase after 10 or more su-fURS scopes were used per life cycle. The life cycle of re-fURS increased by 40% after the introduction of su-fURS. Ten or more used su-fURS per life cycle were associated with increased re-fURS survival.

A Single-Center Prospective Comparative Study of Two Single-Use Flexible Ureteroscopes: LithoVue (Boston Scientific, USA) and Uscope PU3022a (Zhuhai Pusen, China).

Introduction and Objective: Single-use flexible ureteroscopes have the benefit of decreasing infection transmission, avoiding sterilization need, and no maintenance cost. Primary objective was to compare in vivo performance and surgical outcomes with two single-use ureteroscopes: LithoVue (Boston Scientific, USA) and Uscope PU3022a (Zhuhai Pusen, China) with secondary objective being to compare in vivo vision by independent endourologist blinded to ureteroscope manufacturer. Materials and Methods: Fifty patients undergoing retrograde intrarenal surgery with <2 cm renal stones were prospectively allocated: Group 1 (25 patients) for LithoVue and group 2 (25 patients) for Uscope. Pre-, intra-, and postoperative parameters were evaluated. Vision of both ureteroscopes with and without accessory was evaluated by an independent endourologist, blinded to the make of the ureteroscope. Stone clearance was assessed with kidney, ureter, and bladder radiograph (KUB) and ultrasonography KUB at 1 month. Student's t-test for quantitative and chi-square for categorical data was used. Results: Pre- and intraoperative parameters such as need for ureteral dilatation (p > 0.05), ureteral access-sheath size (p = 0.78), accessibility to pelvicaliceal system (p > 0.05), and maneuverability (p > 0.05) were comparable in both groups. Lower-pole access was possible in all cases of LithoVue and slightly difficult in three cases of Uscope (p > 0.5). Intraoperative vision was hazy in four cases of LithoVue and eight cases of Uscope (p = 0.32) during lasing along with three cases of Uscope with accessory (p = 0.24). Blinded endourologist reported more cases of hazy vision with or without accessory or lasing in Uscope arm (p > 0.05). One device had malfunction in LithoVue arm. Complete stone clearance was achieved in all cases at 1 month. Conclusions: We conclude that performance of these two single-use ureteroscopes, LithoVue and Uscope, is comparable in clinical settings with similar clinical outcomes and complications.

Single-use flexible ureteroscopes: how to choose and what is around the corner?

The pace of technology development with single-use endoscopy has led to a range of disposable ureteroscopes. We review the development of single-use scopes, deconstruct the basic design and functional characteristics of available devices, and discuss future directions for next-generation platforms. Currently available devices are differentiated on the basis of several core features. The optical, deflection and irrigation characteristics are marginally different with no device clearly superior in every category. Studies comparing single-use ureteroscopes in patients linked to outcomes are limited. The incorporation of next-generation technologies into these platforms include sensors to monitor intrarenal pressure and temperature, suction of fluid and fragments, and computer vision for artificial intelligence. Each ureteroscope has specific features that may be advantageous in different circumstances. Single-use devices could transform the ureteroscope from a visual conduit to a transformative surgical instrument that improves outcomes and reduces complications.