» Articles » PMID: 34729238

Comparison of Pre- and Post-surgical Images of Reusable and Single Use Flexible Ureteroscopes: a Qualitative Analysis

Overview
Specialty Urology
Date 2021 Nov 3
PMID 34729238
Citations 2
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Introduction: Given the fragility of reusable ureterorenoscopes, many single use instruments have appeared on the market. Unfortunately, reuse of these scopes occurs in undeveloped countries in order to cut costs. This raises safety concerns for the patient.The aim of this article was to macroscopically evaluate the changes that single use flexible ureterorenoscopes (su-fURS) suffer after a retrograde intrarenal surgery (RIRS), and to compare them to reusable fURS.

Material And Methods: Pre and post-operative images of the instruments used in 23 RIRS were obtained. All the cases had renal calculi of the inferior calix between 10-15 mm, and all of them were treated with Holmium laser. The ureterorenoscopes used were: Storz Flex X2, Storz Flex XC, Pusen 3022, OTU Wiscope, AnQIng Innovex and Boston Scientific LithoVue. Qualitative comparisons of these were made.

Results: After su-fURS usage, significant damage was observed, especially on the distal tip. Deflection was not compromised. Reusable fURS did not sustain any damage after their use.

Conclusions: fURS are delicate equipment, especially if they are of single use. The considerable damage sustained by single use scopes could mean that reuse of these instruments is dangerous and should be avoided.

Citing Articles

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

Sugino T, Taguchi K, Unno R, Hamamoto S, Ando R, Okada A Sci Rep. 2022; 12(1):18367.

PMID: 36319740 PMC: 9626578. DOI: 10.1038/s41598-022-23345-z.


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

Jun D, Cho K, Jeong J, Moon Y, Kang D, Jung H Medicina (Kaunas). 2022; 58(10).

PMID: 36295549 PMC: 9607009. DOI: 10.3390/medicina58101388.

References
1.
Legemate J, Kamphuis G, Freund J, Baard J, Zanetti S, Catellani M . Durability of Flexible Ureteroscopes: A Prospective Evaluation of Longevity, the Factors that Affect it, and Damage Mechanisms. Eur Urol Focus. 2018; 5(6):1105-1111. DOI: 10.1016/j.euf.2018.03.001. View

2.
Marchini G, Torricelli F, Batagello C, Monga M, Vicentini F, Danilovic A . A comprehensive literature-based equation to compare cost-effectiveness of a flexible ureteroscopy program with single-use versus reusable devices. Int Braz J Urol. 2019; 45(4):658-670. PMC: 6837614. DOI: 10.1590/S1677-5538.IBJU.2018.0880. View

3.
Sung J, Springhart W, Marguet C, LEsperance J, Tan Y, Albala D . Location and etiology of flexible and semirigid ureteroscope damage. Urology. 2005; 66(5):958-63. DOI: 10.1016/j.urology.2005.05.033. View

4.
Deininger S, Haberstock L, Kruck S, Neumann E, Anselmo da Costa I, Todenhofer T . Single-use versus reusable ureterorenoscopes for retrograde intrarenal surgery (RIRS): systematic comparative analysis of physical and optical properties in three different devices. World J Urol. 2018; 36(12):2059-2063. DOI: 10.1007/s00345-018-2365-9. View

5.
Emiliani E, Traxer O . Single use and disposable flexible ureteroscopes. Curr Opin Urol. 2016; 27(2):176-181. DOI: 10.1097/MOU.0000000000000371. View