Literature DB >> 24837456

Prospective evaluation of refurbished flexible ureteroscope durability seen in a large public tertiary care center with multiple surgeons.

Robert I Carey1, Christopher J Martin2, Jacob R Knego2.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the durability and cost of maintenance for outsourced, refurbished flexible ureteroscopes.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Ureteroscope usage and repair were prospectively recorded over a 365-day period at a large 836-bed public hospital. Cases were performed by 14 different urologists using either refurbished DUR-8 or DUR-8 Elite model ureteroscopes. Retrograde cases involving calculi, urothelial carcinoma, stricture, and diagnostic evaluations were included. Ureteroscope repairs were performed by a single outsourced repair vendor, not the original manufacturer.
RESULTS: A total of 501 ureteroscopic cases involving 550 ureteroscope usages were performed over a 365-day period. Semirigid ureteroscopes were used for 281 (56.1%) cases and refurbished flexible ureteroscopes for 220 (43.9%). The reason for the ureteroscopy was calculi in 386 (77.0%) cases, urothelial carcinoma in 32 (6.4%), stricture in 36 (7.2%), and diagnostic in 47 (9.4%). No repairs were needed during this period for semirigid scopes. Ureteral access sheaths were used in 82 (37.7%) of the cases. A total of 32 instances of catastrophic breakage occurred. Each newly refurbished ureteroscope was used for an average of 6.9 times before incurring further damage requiring repair.
CONCLUSION: Refurbished flexible ureteroscopes that have undergone comprehensive repair are extremely fragile in the setting of multiple surgeon users in a large public hospital that uses central processing for sterilization and storage. This poor durability results in significant maintenance, repair, and administrative inconvenience that should be considered along with the purchase price.
Copyright © 2014 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2014        PMID: 24837456     DOI: 10.1016/j.urology.2014.01.022

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Urology        ISSN: 0090-4295            Impact factor:   2.649


  17 in total

1.  Comparative medico-economic study of reusable vs. single-use flexible ureteroscopes.

Authors:  Khalid Al-Balushi; Nathalie Martin; Hélène Loubon; Michael Baboudjian; Floriane Michel; Pierre-Clément Sichez; Thomas Martin; Eugénie Di-Crocco; Sarah Gaillet; Veronique Delaporte; Akram Akiki; Alice Faure; Gilles Karsenty; Eric Lechevallier; Romain Boissier
Journal:  Int Urol Nephrol       Date:  2019-07-17       Impact factor: 2.370

Review 2.  To Dust or Not To Dust: a Systematic Review of Ureteroscopic Laser Lithotripsy Techniques.

Authors:  Javier E Santiago; Adam B Hollander; Samit D Soni; Richard E Link; Wesley A Mayer
Journal:  Curr Urol Rep       Date:  2017-04       Impact factor: 3.092

Review 3.  Cost comparison of single-use versus reusable flexible ureteroscope: A systematic review.

Authors:  Eugenio Ventimiglia; Alvaro Jiménez Godínez; Olivier Traxer; Bhaskar K Somani
Journal:  Turk J Urol       Date:  2020-08-25

4.  Clinical outcomes and costs of reusable and single-use flexible ureterorenoscopes: a prospective cohort study.

Authors:  R Mager; M Kurosch; T Höfner; S Frees; A Haferkamp; A Neisius
Journal:  Urolithiasis       Date:  2018-01-22       Impact factor: 3.436

Review 5.  Handling and protecting your flexible ureteroscope: how to maximise scope usage.

Authors:  Khaled Hosny; Jennifer Clark; Shalom J Srirangam
Journal:  Transl Androl Urol       Date:  2019-09

6.  A Prospective Case-Control Study Comparing LithoVue, a Single-Use, Flexible Disposable Ureteroscope, with Flexible, Reusable Fiber-Optic Ureteroscopes.

Authors:  Manint Usawachintachit; Dylan S Isaacson; Kazumi Taguchi; David T Tzou; Ryan S Hsi; Benjamin A Sherer; Marshall L Stoller; Thomas Chi
Journal:  J Endourol       Date:  2017-03-13       Impact factor: 2.942

7.  Identifying factors associated with need for flexible ureteroscope repair: a Western Endourology STone (WEST) research consortium prospective cohort study.

Authors:  Kazumi Taguchi; Jonathan D Harper; Marshall L Stoller; Brian D Duty; Mathew D Sorensen; Roger L Sur; Manint Usawachintachit; David T Tzou; David L Wenzler; Dylan Isaacson; Angela Xu; Carissa Chu; Uwais B Zaid; Eric R Taylor; Krishna Ramaswamy; Thomas Chi
Journal:  Urolithiasis       Date:  2017-12-09       Impact factor: 3.436

8.  Prospective comparative study between the effect of CIDEX® OPA and STERRAD NX on the durability of digital flexible ureteroscope.

Authors:  Saeed H Al Qahtani; Mohamed H Abdelhamied; Abdulrahman H AlMuhrij; Mizyad Y Al Rawashada; Ahmed M Al Askar; Amr M Abdelhamid; Tarek K Fath El-Bab; Ehab M Galal; Mahmoud S Eladawy
Journal:  World J Urol       Date:  2019-05-13       Impact factor: 4.226

9.  WiScope® single use digital flexible ureteroscope versus reusable flexible ureteroscope for management of renal stones: a prospective randomized study.

Authors:  Ahmed I Ali; Amr Eldakhakhny; Abdelsalam Abdelfadel; Mahmoud F Rohiem; Mohamed Elbadry; Ali Hassan
Journal:  World J Urol       Date:  2022-07-27       Impact factor: 3.661

10.  First clinical evaluation of a new single-use flexible ureteroscope (LithoVue™): a European prospective multicentric feasibility study.

Authors:  Steeve Doizi; Guido Kamphuis; Guido Giusti; Kim Hovgaard Andreassen; Thomas Knoll; Palle Jörn Osther; Cesare Scoffone; Daniel Pérez-Fentes; Silvia Proietti; Oliver Wiseman; Jean de la Rosette; Olivier Traxer
Journal:  World J Urol       Date:  2016-09-26       Impact factor: 4.226

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.