Can the introduction of single-use flexible ureteroscopes increase the longevity of reusable flexible ureteroscopes at a high volume centre?
Disposable
Flexible ureteroscopy
Repair
Reusable
Single use
Journal
World journal of urology
ISSN: 1433-8726
Titre abrégé: World J Urol
Pays: Germany
ID NLM: 8307716
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Jan 2022
Jan 2022
Historique:
received:
11
05
2021
accepted:
04
08
2021
pubmed:
24
8
2021
medline:
19
2
2022
entrez:
23
8
2021
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
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.
Identifiants
pubmed: 34424373
doi: 10.1007/s00345-021-03808-0
pii: 10.1007/s00345-021-03808-0
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
251-256Informations de copyright
© 2021. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature.
Références
Ziemba JB, Matlaga BR (2017) Epidemiology and economics of nephrolithiasis. Investig Clin Urol 58:299–306. https://doi.org/10.4111/icu.2017.58.5.299
doi: 10.4111/icu.2017.58.5.299
pubmed: 28868500
pmcid: 5577325
Türk C, Vice-chair AS, Neisius A, Petrik A, Seitz C, Thomas K et al (2019) EAU guidelines on urolithiasis. EAU, Arnhem
Semins MJ, George S, Allaf ME, Matlaga BR (2009) Ureteroscope cleaning and sterilization by the urology operating room team: the effect on repair costs. J Endourol 23:903–905. https://doi.org/10.1089/end.2008.0489
doi: 10.1089/end.2008.0489
pubmed: 19445639
Butticè S, Sener TE, Netsch C, Emiliani E, Pappalardo R, Magno C (2016) LithoVue
doi: 10.5173/ceju.2016.872
Doizi S, Kamphuis G, Giusti G, Andreassen KH, Knoll T, Osther PJ et al (2017) First clinical evaluation of a new single-use flexible ureteroscope (LithoVue): a European prospective multicentric feasibility study. World J Urol 35:809–818. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-016-1936-x
doi: 10.1007/s00345-016-1936-x
pubmed: 27671898
Ventimiglia E, Somani BK, Traxer O (2019) Flexible ureteroscopy: reuse? Or is single use the new direction? Curr Opin Urol. https://doi.org/10.1097/MOU.0000000000000700
doi: 10.1097/MOU.0000000000000700
Davis NF, Quinlan MR, Browne C, Bhatt NR, Manecksha RP, D’Arcy FT et al (2018) Single-use flexible ureteropyeloscopy: a systematic review. World J Urol 36:529–536. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-017-2131-4
doi: 10.1007/s00345-017-2131-4
pubmed: 29177820
Proietti S, Dragos L, Molina W, Doizi S, Giusti G, Traxer O (2016) Comparison of new single-use digital flexible ureteroscope versus nondisposable fiber optic and digital ureteroscope in a cadaveric model. J Endourol 30:655–659. https://doi.org/10.1089/end.2016.0051
doi: 10.1089/end.2016.0051
pubmed: 27084572
pmcid: 4913498
Johnston TJ, Baard J, de la Rosette J, Doizi S, Giusti G, Knoll T et al (2018) A clinical evaluation of the new digital single-use flexible ureteroscope (UscopePU3022): an international prospective multicentered study. Cent Eur J Urol 71:453–461. https://doi.org/10.5173/ceju.2018.1787
doi: 10.5173/ceju.2018.1787
Dale J, Kaplan AG, Radvak D, Shin R, Ackerman A, Chen T et al (2017) Evaluation of a novel single-use flexible ureteroscope. J Endourol. https://doi.org/10.1089/end.2016.0237
doi: 10.1089/end.2016.0237
pubmed: 28401803
Talso M, Proietti S, Emiliani E, Gallioli A, Dragos L, Orosa A et al (2018) Comparison of flexible ureterorenoscope quality of vision: an in vitro study. J Endourol 32:523–528. https://doi.org/10.1089/end.2017.0838
doi: 10.1089/end.2017.0838
pubmed: 29562765
Talso M, Goumas IK, Kamphuis GM, Dragos L, Tefik T, Traxer O et al (2019) Reusable flexible ureterorenoscopes are more cost-effective than single-use scopes: results of a systematic review from PETRA Uro-group. Transl Androl Urol 8:S418–S425. https://doi.org/10.21037/tau.2019.06.13
doi: 10.21037/tau.2019.06.13
pubmed: 31656747
pmcid: 6790417
CDC (2008) Guideline for disinfection and sterilization in healthcare facilities—peracetic acid sterilization 2008. https://www.cdc.gov/infectioncontrol/guidelines/disinfection/sterilization/peracetic-acid.html . Accessed 30 Nov 2019
Legemate JD, Kamphuis GM, Freund JE, Baard J, Zanetti SP, Catellani M et al (2019) Durability of flexible ureteroscopes: a prospective evaluation of longevity, the factors that affect it, and damage mechanisms. Eur Urol Focus. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.euf.2018.03.001
doi: 10.1016/j.euf.2018.03.001
pubmed: 29534873
Ofstead CL, Heymann OL, Quick MR, Johnson EA, Eiland JE, Wetzler HP (2017) The effectiveness of sterilization for flexible ureteroscopes: a real-world study. Am J Infect Control 45:888–895. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajic.2017.03.016
doi: 10.1016/j.ajic.2017.03.016
pubmed: 28625700
Legemate JD, Kamphuis GM, Freund JE, Baard J, Oussoren HW, Spijkerman IJB et al (2019) Pre-use ureteroscope contamination after high level disinfection: reprocessing effectiveness and the relation with cumulative ureteroscope use. J Urol 201:1144–1151. https://doi.org/10.1097/JU.0000000000000108
doi: 10.1097/JU.0000000000000108
pubmed: 30707130
Taguchi K, Usawachintachit M, Tzou DT, Sherer BA, Metzler I, Isaacson D et al (2018) Micro-costing analysis demonstrates comparable costs for lithovue compared to reusable flexible fiberoptic ureteroscopes. J Endourol 32:267–273. https://doi.org/10.1089/end.2017.0523
doi: 10.1089/end.2017.0523
pubmed: 29239227
Mager R, Kurosch M, Hofner T, Frees S, Haferkamp A, Neisius A (2018) Clinical outcomes and costs of reusable and single-use flexible ureterorenoscopes: a prospective cohort study. Urolithiasis 46:587–593. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00240-018-1042-1
doi: 10.1007/s00240-018-1042-1
pubmed: 29356873
Usawachintachit M, Isaacson DS, Taguchi K, Tzou DT, Hsi RS, Sherer BA et al (2017) A prospective case-control study comparing lithovue, a single-use, flexible disposable ureteroscope, with flexible, reusable fiber-optic ureteroscopes. J Endourol 31:468–475. https://doi.org/10.1089/end.2017.0027
doi: 10.1089/end.2017.0027
pubmed: 28287823
pmcid: 5439446
Martin CJ, McAdams SB, Abdul-Muhsin H, Lim VM, Nunez-Nateras R, Tyson MD et al (2017) The economic implications of a reusable flexible digital ureteroscope: a cost-benefit analysis. J Urol 197:730–735. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2016.09.085
doi: 10.1016/j.juro.2016.09.085
pubmed: 27693449
Ozimek T, Schneider MH, Hupe MC, Wiessmeyer JR, Cordes J, Chlosta PL et al (2017) Retrospective cost analysis of a single-center reusable flexible ureterorenoscopy program: a comparative cost simulation of disposable fURS as an alternative. J Endourol 31:1226–1230. https://doi.org/10.1089/end.2017.0427
doi: 10.1089/end.2017.0427
pubmed: 29073769
Pietropaolo A, Skolarikos A, Liatsikos E, Rukin N, Niewad EB, Sener E et al (2019) Worldwide survey of flexible ureteroscopy (FURS) practice: a survey from EAU sections of young academic urologists (YAU) and uro-technology (ESUT). Eur Urol Suppl 18:e2846–e2847. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1569-9056(19)33033-7
doi: 10.1016/S1569-9056(19)33033-7
Marchini GS, Torricelli FC, Batagello CA, Monga M, Vicentini FC, Danilovic A et al (2019) A comprehensive literature-based equation to compare cost-effectiveness of a flexible ureteroscopy program with single-use versus reusable devices. Int Braz J Urol 45:658–670. https://doi.org/10.1590/S1677-5538.IBJU.2018.0880
doi: 10.1590/S1677-5538.IBJU.2018.0880
pubmed: 31397987
pmcid: 6837614
Somani BK, Talso M, Bres-niewada E (2019) Current role of single-use flexible ureteroscopes in the management of upper tract stone disease. J Endourol. https://doi.org/10.1089/end.2016.0237
doi: 10.1089/end.2016.0237
pubmed: 31456421
Dragos LB, Somani BK, Keller EX, De Coninck VMJ, Herrero MR, Kamphuis GM et al (2019) Characteristics of current digital single-use flexible ureteroscopes versus their reusable counterparts: an in-vitro comparative analysis. Transl Androl Urol. https://doi.org/10.21037/tau.2019.09.17
doi: 10.21037/tau.2019.09.17
pubmed: 31656747
pmcid: 6790417
Al-Balushi K, Martin N, Loubon H, Baboudjian M, Michel F, Sichez P-C et al (2019) Comparative medico-economic study of reusable vs. single-use flexible ureteroscopes. Int Urol Nephrol 51:1735–1741. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11255-019-02230-1
doi: 10.1007/s11255-019-02230-1
pubmed: 31317310
Davis NF, McGrath S, Quinlan M, Jack G, Lawrentschuk N, Bolton DM (2018) Carbon footprint in flexible ureteroscopy: a comparative study on the environmental impact of reusable and single-use ureteroscopes. J Endourol 32:214–217. https://doi.org/10.1089/end.2018.0001
doi: 10.1089/end.2018.0001
pubmed: 29373918