WiScope® Single Use Digital Flexible Ureteroscope Versus Reusable Flexible Ureteroscope for Management of Renal Stones: a Prospective Randomized Study

Overview

Journal World J Urol

Specialty Urology

Date 2022 Jul 27

PMID 35895116

Authors

Ahmed I Ali

Amr Eldakhakhny

Abdelsalam Abdelfadel

Mahmoud F Rohiem

Mohamed Elbadry

Ali Hassan

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Objectives: To compare the clinical performance and surgical outcomes of the new digital single use flexible ureteroscope (WiScope) with a reusable digital flexible ureteroscope.

Patient And Methods: Our prospective study includes patients with renal stones less than 2 cm who underwent retrograde flexible ureteroscopy and laser lithotripsy. Patients were randomized into two groups: group A included patients who underwent laser lithotripsy using WiScope Single use digital flexible ureteroscope and group B included patients who underwent laser lithotripsy using reusable flexible ureteroscope. Image quality, deflection, ease of insertion, maneuverability, and overall performance were assessed using either a visual analog or Likert scale. Operative outcomes and complications were collected and analyzed in both groups.

Results: A total of 242 patients were included in our study. There were 121 patients in the WiScope group and 121 patients in reusable ureteroscope group. The WiScope had higher maneuverability (9.3 ± 0.7 vs. 7.2 ± 0.8, P < 0.001) and less limb fatigue but had lower image quality when compared to reusable digital flexible ureteroscope (7.6 ± 0.9 vs. 9.2 ± 0.6, P < 0.001). There were no differences in operative time, complication rates and rates of relook ureteroscopy.

Conclusions: The WiScope single use flexible ureteroscope has comparable outcomes to the reusable flexible ureteroscope with regard to maneuverability, limb fatigue, and deflection. However, it has a lower image quality.

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.

Application of 11/13Fr suctioning ureteral access sheath and 8.55Fr single-use digital flexible ureteroscope in one-stage flexible ureteroscopic lithotripsy: an initial experience of 900 cases.

Huang W, Huang H, Wang Y, Chen W, Deng H, Zhong M Urolithiasis. 2024; 52(1):112.

PMID: 39105853 DOI: 10.1007/s00240-024-01607-x.

Single use flexible ureteroscopes: Current status and future directions.

Juliebo-Jones P, Ventimiglia E, Somani B, Asoy M, Gjengsto P, Beisland C BJUI Compass. 2023; 4(6):613-621.

PMID: 37818020 PMC: 10560621. DOI: 10.1002/bco2.265.

Single-use flexible ureteroscope provides an alternative treatment for upper urinary calculi: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Zhang F, Xu J, Liang H Medicine (Baltimore). 2023; 102(36):e34829.

PMID: 37682159 PMC: 10489268. DOI: 10.1097/MD.0000000000034829.

References

Turk C, Petrik A, Sarica K, Seitz C, Skolarikos A, Straub M . EAU Guidelines on Diagnosis and Conservative Management of Urolithiasis. Eur Urol. 2015; 69(3):468-74. DOI: 10.1016/j.eururo.2015.07.040. View

Marshall V . FIBER OPTICS IN UROLOGY. J Urol. 1964; 91:110-4. DOI: 10.1016/S0022-5347(17)64066-7. View

Ordon M, Urbach D, Mamdani M, Saskin R, Honey R, Pace K . A population based study of the changing demographics of patients undergoing definitive treatment for kidney stone disease. J Urol. 2014; 193(3):869-74. DOI: 10.1016/j.juro.2014.09.096. View

Turney B, Reynard J, Noble J, Keoghane S . Trends in urological stone disease. BJU Int. 2011; 109(7):1082-7. DOI: 10.1111/j.1464-410X.2011.10495.x. View

Monga M, Best S, Venkatesh R, Ames C, Lee C, Kuskowski M . Durability of flexible ureteroscopes: a randomized, prospective study. J Urol. 2006; 176(1):137-41. DOI: 10.1016/S0022-5347(06)00575-1. View

Chang C, Su L, Lu C, Tai F, Huang Y, Chang K . Outbreak of ertapenem-resistant Enterobacter cloacae urinary tract infections due to a contaminated ureteroscope. J Hosp Infect. 2013; 85(2):118-24. DOI: 10.1016/j.jhin.2013.06.010. View

Martin C, McAdams S, Abdul-Muhsin H, Lim V, Nunez-Nateras R, Tyson M . The Economic Implications of a Reusable Flexible Digital Ureteroscope: A Cost-Benefit Analysis. J Urol. 2016; 197(3 Pt 1):730-735. DOI: 10.1016/j.juro.2016.09.085. View

Taguchi K, Usawachintachit M, Tzou D, Sherer B, Metzler I, Isaacson D . Micro-Costing Analysis Demonstrates Comparable Costs for LithoVue Compared to Reusable Flexible Fiberoptic Ureteroscopes. J Endourol. 2017; 32(4):267-273. DOI: 10.1089/end.2017.0523. View

Hennessey D, Fojecki G, Papa N, Lawrentschuk N, Bolton D . Single-use disposable digital flexible ureteroscopes: an ex vivo assessment and cost analysis. BJU Int. 2018; 121 Suppl 3:55-61. DOI: 10.1111/bju.14235. View

10.

Johnston T, Baard J, de la Rosette J, Doizi S, Giusti G, Knoll T . A clinical evaluation of the new digital single-use flexible ureteroscope (UscopePU3022): an international prospective multicentered study. Cent European J Urol. 2019; 71(4):453-461. PMC: 6338818. DOI: 10.5173/ceju.2018.1787. View

11.

Bagley D, Rittenberg M . Percutaneous antegrade flexible ureteroscopy. Urology. 1986; 27(4):331-4. DOI: 10.1016/0090-4295(86)90308-0. View

12.

Ordon M, Urbach D, Mamdani M, Saskin R, Honey R, Pace K . The surgical management of kidney stone disease: a population based time series analysis. J Urol. 2014; 192(5):1450-6. DOI: 10.1016/j.juro.2014.05.095. View

13.

Lusch A, Abdelshehid C, Hidas G, Osann K, Okhunov Z, McDougall E . In vitro and in vivo comparison of optics and performance of a distal sensor ureteroscope versus a standard fiberoptic ureteroscope. J Endourol. 2013; 27(7):896-902. PMC: 3826566. DOI: 10.1089/end.2013.0003. View

14.

Proietti S, Dragos L, Molina W, Doizi S, Giusti G, Traxer O . Comparison of New Single-Use Digital Flexible Ureteroscope Versus Nondisposable Fiber Optic and Digital Ureteroscope in a Cadaveric Model. J Endourol. 2016; 30(6):655-9. PMC: 4913498. DOI: 10.1089/end.2016.0051. View

15.

Carey R, Martin C, Knego J . Prospective evaluation of refurbished flexible ureteroscope durability seen in a large public tertiary care center with multiple surgeons. Urology. 2014; 84(1):42-5. DOI: 10.1016/j.urology.2014.01.022. View

16.

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

17.

Abraham J, Abdelshehid C, Lee H, Box G, Deane L, Le T . Rapid communication: effects of Steris 1 sterilization and Cidex ortho-phthalaldehyde high-level disinfection on durability of new-generation flexible ureteroscopes. J Endourol. 2007; 21(9):985-92. DOI: 10.1089/end.2007.0181. View

18.

Ofstead C, Heymann O, Quick M, Johnson E, Eiland J, Wetzler H . The effectiveness of sterilization for flexible ureteroscopes: A real-world study. Am J Infect Control. 2017; 45(8):888-895. DOI: 10.1016/j.ajic.2017.03.016. View

19.

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

20.

Traxer O . Flexible ureterorenoscopic management of lower-pole stone: does the scope make the difference?. J Endourol. 2008; 22(9):1847-50. DOI: 10.1089/end.2008.9792. View