Single use flexible ureteroscopes: a review of current technologies and cost effectiveness analysis.
Journal
Current opinion in urology
ISSN: 1473-6586
Titre abrégé: Curr Opin Urol
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 9200621
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
15 Nov 2023
15 Nov 2023
Historique:
medline:
14
11
2023
pubmed:
14
11
2023
entrez:
14
11
2023
Statut:
aheadofprint
Résumé
Flexible ureteroscopy (fURS) has evolved into both diagnostic and therapeutic modalities. Our review discusses the cost-effectiveness of single use flexible ureteroscopes (su-fURS) and the use of these instruments in routine urological practice. There are studies which support the use of su-fURS with an argument of both cost and clinical utility over reusable flexible ureteroscopes (ru-fURS). However, the cost may vary across countries, hence is difficult to compare the results based on the current literature. Perhaps therefore there is a role for hybrid strategy incorporating ru- and su-fURS, where su-fURS are employed in complex endourological cases with a high risk of scope damage or fracture to preserve ru-fURS, with the ability to maintain clinical activity in such an event. While there seems to be some cost advantages with su-fURS with reduced sterilization and maintenance costs, the data supporting it is sparse and limited. This choice of scope would depend on the durability of ru-fURS, procedural volumes, limited availability of sterilization units in some centers and potential risk of infectious complications. It is time that cost-benefit analysis is conducted with defined outcomes for a given healthcare set-up to help with the decision making on the type of scope that best serves their needs.
Identifiants
pubmed: 37962372
doi: 10.1097/MOU.0000000000001152
pii: 00042307-990000000-00132
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Informations de copyright
Copyright © 2023 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.
Références
Alenezi H, Denstedt JD. Flexible ureteroscopy: technological advancements, current indications and outcomes in the treatment of urolithiasis. Asian J Urol 2015; 2:133–141.
Tzelves L, Türk C, Skolarikos A. European Association of Urology Urolithiasis Guidelines: where are we going? Eur Urol Focus 2021; 7:34–38.
Zeng G, Traxer O, Zhong W, et al. International Alliance of Urolithiasis guideline on retrograde intrarenal surgery. BJU Int 2023; 131:153–164.
Juliebø-Jones P, Ventimiglia E, Somani BK, et al. Single use flexible ureteroscopes: current status and future directions. BJUI Compass 2023; 4:613–621.
Ventimiglia E, Somani BK, Traxer O. Flexible ureteroscopy: reuse? Or is single use the new direction? Curr Opin Urol 2020; 30:113–119.
Jun DY, Cho KS, Jeong JY, et al. Comparison of surgical outcomes between single-use and reusable flexible ureteroscopes for renal stone management: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Medicina (Kaunas) 2022; 58:1338.
Taguchi K, Harper JD, Stoller ML, et al. Identifying factors associated with need for flexible ureteroscope repair: a Western Endourology STone (WEST) research consortium prospective cohort study. Urolithiasis 2018; 46:559–566.
Hennessey DB, Fojecki GL, Papa NP, et al. Single-use disposable digital flexible ureteroscopes: an ex vivo assessment and cost analysis. BJU Int 2018; 121:55–61.
Ofstead CL, Heymann OL, Quick MR, et al. The effectiveness of sterilization for flexible ureteroscopes: a real-world study. Am J Infect Control 2017; 45:888–895.
Taguchi K, Usawachintachit M, Tzou DT, et al. Micro-costing analysis demonstrates comparable costs for lithovue compared to reusable flexible fiberoptic ureteroscopes. J Endourol 2018; 32:267–273.
Mager R, Kurosch M, Höfner T, et al. Clinical outcomes and costs of reusable and single-use flexible ureterorenoscopes: a prospective cohort study. Urolithiasis 2018; 46:587–593.
Al-Balushi K, Martin N, Loubon H, et al. Comparative medico-economic study of reusable vs. single-use flexible ureteroscopes. Int Urol Nephrol 2019; 51:1735–1741.
Kam J, Yuminaga Y, Beattie K, et al. Single use versus reusable digital flexible ureteroscopes: a prospective comparative study. Int J Urol 2019; 26:999–1005.
Bozzini G, Filippi B, Alriyalat S, et al. Disposable versus reusable ureteroscopes: a prospective multicenter randomized comparison. Res reports Urol 2021; 13:63–71.
Huang F, Zhang X, Cui Y, et al. Single-use vs. reusable digital flexible ureteroscope to treat upper urinary calculi: a propensity-score matching analysis. Front Surg 2021; 8:778157.
Rindorf DK, Tailly T, Kamphuis GM, et al. Repair rate and associated costs of reusable flexible ureteroscopes: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur Urol open Sci 2022; 37:64–72.
Talso M, Goumas IK, Kamphuis GM, et al. Reusable flexible ureterorenoscopes are more cost-effective than single-use scopes: results of a systematic review from PETRA Uro-group. Transl Androl Urol 2019; 8:418–425.
Ventimiglia E, Godínez AJ, Traxer O, Somani BK. Cost comparison of single-use versus reusable flexible ureteroscope: a systematic review. Turkish J Urol 2020; 46:40–45.
Martin CJ, McAdams SB, Abdul-Muhsin H, et al. The economic implications of a reusable flexible digital ureteroscope: a cost-benefit analysis. J Urol 2017; 197:730–735.
Ozimek T, Schneider MH, Hupe MC, et al. Retrospective cost analysis of a single-center reusable flexible ureterorenoscopy program: a comparative cost simulation of disposable fURS as an alternative. J Endourol 2017; 31:1226–1230.
Gauhar V, Chai CA, Chew BH, et al. RIRS with disposable or reusable scopes: does it make a difference? Results from the multicenter FLEXOR study. Ther Adv Urol 2023; 15:17562872231158072.
Somani BK, Talso M, Bres-Niewada E. Current role of single-use flexible ureteroscopes in the management of upper tract stone disease. Cent Eur J Urol 2019; 72:183–184.
Ventimiglia E, Smyth N, Doizi S, et al. Can the introduction of single-use flexible ureteroscopes increase the longevity of reusable flexible ureteroscopes at a high volume centre? World J Urol 2022; 40:251–256.
Somani B, Robertson A, Kata SG. Decreasing the cost of flexible ureterorenoscopic procedures. Urology 2011; 78:528–530.
Chapman RA, Somani BK, Robertson A, et al. Decreasing cost of flexible ureterorenoscopy: single-use laser fiber cost analysis. Urology 2014; 83:1003–1005.
Usawachintachit M, Isaacson DS, Taguchi K, et al. A prospective case-control study comparing lithovue, a single-use, flexible disposable ureteroscope, with flexible, reusable fiber-optic ureteroscopes. J Endourol 2017; 31:468–475.
Gauhar V, Somani BK, Heng CT, et al. Technique, feasibility, utility, limitations, and future perspectives of a new technique of applying direct in-scope suction to improve outcomes of retrograde intrarenal surgery for stones. J Clin Med 2022; 11:5710.
Gauhar V, Traxer O, Castellani D, et al. A feasibility study on clinical utility, efficacy and limitations of 2 types of flexible and navigable suction ureteral access sheaths in retrograde intrarenal surgery for renal stones. Urology 2023; 178:173–179.
Giulioni C, Castellani D, Traxer O, et al. E. Experimental and clinical applications and outcomes of using different forms of suction in retrograde intrarenal surgery. Results from a systematic review. Actas Urol Esp 2023; S2173-5786(23)00060-4.
Juliebø-Jones P, Keller EX, Haugland JN, et al. Advances in ureteroscopy: new technologies and current innovations in the era of tailored endourological stone treatment (TEST). J Clin Urol 2023; 16:190–198.
Bhanot R, Pietropaolo A, Tokas T, et al. Predictors and strategies to avoid mortality following ureteroscopy for stone disease: a systematic review from European Association of Urologists Sections of Urolithiasis (EULIS) and Uro-technology (ESUT). Eur Urol Focus 2022; 8:598–607.