» Articles » PMID: 31448473

Single Use Versus Reusable Digital Flexible Ureteroscopes: A Prospective Comparative Study

Overview
Journal Int J Urol
Specialty Urology
Date 2019 Aug 27
PMID 31448473
Citations 24
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Objectives: To compare the performance and surgical outcomes of two different single-use digital flexible ureteroscopes with a reusable video flexible ureteroscope.

Methods: Patients undergoing retrograde flexible ureteroscopy at Nepean Hospital, Sydney, Australia, were included in this study. Three different flexible ureteroscopes were used in this study: (i) single-use digital LithoVue (Boston Scientific, Marlborough, MA, USA); (ii) single-use digital PU3022A (Pusen, Zhuhai, China); and (iii) reusable digital URF-V2 (Olympus, Tokyo, Japan). Visibility and maneuverability was rated on a 5-point Likert scale by the operating surgeon. Operative outcomes and complications were collected and analyzed.

Results: A total of 150 patients were included in the present study. Of these, 141 patients had ureteroscopy for stone treatment, four for endoscopic combined intrarenal surgery and five for diagnostic/tumor treatment. There were 55 patients in the LithoVue group, 31 in the PU3022A group and 64 patients in the Olympus URF-V2 group. The URF-V2 group had higher visibility scores than both the single-use scopes and higher maneuverability scores when compared with the PU3022A. The LithoVue had higher visibility and maneuverability scores when compared with the PU3022A. There were no differences in operative time, rates of relook flexible ureteroscopes, scope failure or complication rates observed.

Conclusions: Single-use digital flexible ureteroscopes have visibility and maneuverability profiles approaching that of a reusable digital flexible ureteroscope. Single-use flexible ureteroscopes achieve similar clinical outcomes to the more expensive reusable versions.

Citing Articles

A prospective survey evaluating the visual quality of KARL STORZ fiberoptic, digital, and disposable flexible ureteroscopes.

Wong C, Xu P, Dean N, Assmus M, McDonald A, Agarwal D World J Urol. 2025; 43(1):119.

PMID: 39937281 DOI: 10.1007/s00345-025-05502-x.


Complications of Single-Use Flexible Ureteroscopy vs. Reusable Flexible Ureteroscopy: A Narrative Review.

Punga A, Ene C, Bulai C, Georgescu D, Multescu R, Georgescu D Cureus. 2025; 16(12):e76256.

PMID: 39845241 PMC: 11753191. DOI: 10.7759/cureus.76256.


When acute myocardial infarction meets renal abscess: Case report and literature review.

Zhu X, Shu H, Han S, Li J, Su H, Li Q Medicine (Baltimore). 2025; 103(47):e40655.

PMID: 39809180 PMC: 11596588. DOI: 10.1097/MD.0000000000040655.


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

Salka B, Bahaee J, DiBianco J, Plott J, Ghani K Front Surg. 2024; 11:1419682.

PMID: 39027916 PMC: 11254690. DOI: 10.3389/fsurg.2024.1419682.


Clinical comparative study of single-use and reusable digital flexible ureteroscopy for the treatment of lower pole stones: a retrospective case-controlled study.

Jing Q, Liu F, Yuan X, Zhang X, Cao X BMC Urol. 2024; 24(1):149.

PMID: 39026274 PMC: 11256421. DOI: 10.1186/s12894-024-01541-5.