Single-use Flexible Ureteroscope Provides an Alternative Treatment for Upper Urinary Calculi: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

Overview

Journal Medicine (Baltimore)

Specialty General Medicine

Date 2023 Sep 8

PMID 37682159

Authors

Fulin Zhang

Jinbin Xu

Hui Liang

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Objective: This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of single-use flexible ureteroscope and reusable flexible ureteroscope for upper urinary calculi.

Methods: We conducted a meta-analysis that had a comprehensive search in PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, and WanFang databases from 2000/01/01 to 2023/06/01 for available randomized controlled trials. "Ureteroscopes," "Flexible Ureteroscope," "Single-use," and "Upper Urinary Calculi" were used as the major keywords for the search. Review Manager 5.0 and STATA 12.0 were used for calculation and statistical analysis.

Results: A total of 9 randomized controlled trials comprising 1293 participants were included in our meta-analysis. Single use-FURS had better results in stone-free rate (relative risk: 1.08, 95% confidence interval: [1.02, 1.15], P = .02) and postoperative infection (relative risk: 0.41, 95% confidence interval: [0.23, 0.72], P = .002). Operative time, hemoglobin decline, postoperative serum creatinine, postoperative hospital stay, and overall complication after surgery showed no significant differences between the 2 procedures (P > .05).

Conclusion: Single-use flexible ureteroscope provides a valuable alternative to reusable flexible ureteroscope in upper urinary calculi with its better visual field performance and manipulation, opening a new technological revolution for kidney stone treatment.

Citing Articles

Clinical efficacy and safety of flexible ureteroscopy and percutaneous nephrolithotomy for large kidney stones: A retrospective comparative study.

Wang Q, Liu J, Cao J, Ding J World J Clin Cases. 2024; 12(21):4483-4490.

PMID: 39070817 PMC: 11235503. DOI: 10.12998/wjcc.v12.i21.4483.

References

Ma Y, Jian Z, Jin X, Li H, Wang K . Stone removing efficiency and safety comparison between single use ureteroscope and reusable ureteroscope: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Transl Androl Urol. 2021; 10(4):1627-1636. PMC: 8100856. DOI: 10.21037/tau-20-1399. View

Mourmouris P, Tzelves L, Raptidis G, Berdempes M, Markopoulos T, Dellis G . Comparison of a single-use, digital flexible ureteroscope with a reusable, fiberoptic ureteroscope for management of patients with urolithiasis. Arch Ital Urol Androl. 2021; 93(3):326-329. DOI: 10.4081/aiua.2021.3.326. View

Geraghty R, Davis N, Tzelves L, Lombardo R, Yuan C, Thomas K . Best Practice in Interventional Management of Urolithiasis: An Update from the European Association of Urology Guidelines Panel for Urolithiasis 2022. Eur Urol Focus. 2022; 9(1):199-208. DOI: 10.1016/j.euf.2022.06.014. View

Large T, Rivera M, Nottingham C, Agarwal D, Mellon M, Krambeck A . Initial Experience with Novel Single-Use Disposable Ureteroscopy: A Prospective, Single Arm 90-Day Trial of the Axis Ureteroscope. Urol Pract. 2023; 8(2):196-202. DOI: 10.1097/UPJ.0000000000000194. View

Meng C, Peng L, Li J, Li Y, Li J, Wu J . Comparison Between Single-Use Flexible Ureteroscope and Reusable Flexible Ureteroscope for Upper Urinary Calculi: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Front Surg. 2021; 8:691170. PMC: 8548426. DOI: 10.3389/fsurg.2021.691170. 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

Sorokin I, Mamoulakis C, Miyazawa K, Rodgers A, Talati J, Lotan Y . Epidemiology of stone disease across the world. World J Urol. 2017; 35(9):1301-1320. DOI: 10.1007/s00345-017-2008-6. View

Goger Y, Ozkent M, Kilinc M, Taskapu H, Goger E, Aydin A . Efficiency of retrograde intrarenal surgery in lower pole stones: disposable flexible ureterorenoscope or reusable flexible ureterorenoscope?. World J Urol. 2021; 39(9):3643-3650. DOI: 10.1007/s00345-021-03656-y. View

Ali A, Eldakhakhny A, Abdelfadel A, Rohiem M, Elbadry M, Hassan A . WiScope® single use digital flexible ureteroscope versus reusable flexible ureteroscope for management of renal stones: a prospective randomized study. World J Urol. 2022; 40(9):2323-2330. DOI: 10.1007/s00345-022-04095-z. View

10.

Zhang X, Liu Z, Chen X, Li D, Yang Z, Gu J . The effect of application of a Soton ureteroscope on infection after flexible ureteroscopy lithotripsy. Wideochir Inne Tech Maloinwazyjne. 2022; 17(1):232-239. PMC: 8886481. DOI: 10.5114/wiitm.2021.107763. View

11.

Huang F, Zhang X, Cui Y, Zhu Z, Li Y, Chen J . Single-Use vs. Reusable Digital Flexible Ureteroscope to Treat Upper Urinary Calculi: A Propensity-Score Matching Analysis. Front Surg. 2022; 8:778157. PMC: 8784383. DOI: 10.3389/fsurg.2021.778157. View

12.

Kam J, Yuminaga Y, Beattie K, Ling K, Arianayagam M, Canagasingham B . Single use versus reusable digital flexible ureteroscopes: A prospective comparative study. Int J Urol. 2019; 26(10):999-1005. DOI: 10.1111/iju.14091. View

13.

Carlos E, Li J, Young B, Radvak D, Wollin D, Winship B . Let's Get to the Point: Comparing Insertion Characteristics and Scope Damage of Flat-Tip and Ball-Tip Holmium Laser Fibers. J Endourol. 2018; 33(1):22-26. DOI: 10.1089/end.2018.0229. View

14.

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

15.

Salvado J, Cabello J, Moreno S, Cabello R, Olivares R, Velasco A . Endoscopic treatment of lower pole stones: is a disposable ureteroscope preferable? Results of a prospective case-control study. Cent European J Urol. 2019; 72(3):280-284. PMC: 6830478. DOI: 10.5173/ceju.2019.1962. View

16.

Shamseer L, Moher D, Clarke M, Ghersi D, Liberati A, Petticrew M . Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015: elaboration and explanation. BMJ. 2015; 350:g7647. DOI: 10.1136/bmj.g7647. View

17.

Qi S, Yang E, Bao J, Yang N, Guo H, Wang G . Single-Use Versus Reusable Digital Flexible Ureteroscopes for the Treatment of Renal Calculi: A Prospective Multicenter Randomized Controlled Trial. J Endourol. 2019; 34(1):18-24. DOI: 10.1089/end.2019.0473. View

18.

Dale J, Kaplan A, Radvak D, Shin R, Ackerman A, Chen T . Evaluation of a Novel Single-Use Flexible Ureteroscope. J Endourol. 2016; 35(6):903-907. DOI: 10.1089/end.2016.0237. View

19.

Tzelves L, Geraghty R, Lombardo R, Davis N, Petrik A, Neisius A . Duration of Follow-up and Timing of Discharge from Imaging Follow-up, in Adult Patients with Urolithiasis After Surgical or Medical Intervention: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis from the European Association of Urology Guideline Panel on.... Eur Urol Focus. 2022; 9(1):188-198. DOI: 10.1016/j.euf.2022.06.016. View

20.

Bragaru M, Multescu R, Geavlete P, Popescu R, Geavlete B . Comparison of Flexible Ureteroscope Performance between Reusable and Single-Use Models. J Clin Med. 2023; 12(3). PMC: 9917814. DOI: 10.3390/jcm12031093. View