OBJECTIVE: The increasing number of flexible ureterorenoscopy (fURS) procedures, the fragility of devices, and their growing maintenance and repair costs represent a substantial burden for urologic departments. Disposable single-use fURS devices offer many advantages over reusable fURS. Among them, the LithoVue™ model shows the best clinical utility. In our study, we assessed the economic aspects of reusable fURS application compared with the potential costs and benefits of single-use fURS (LithoVue™). Indications for single-use fURS were proposed based on potential risk factors of reusable fURS damage. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This single-center retrospective analysis compared the actual cost of reusable fURS procedures with the potential costs of LithoVue™ based on the price offered by the manufacturer. Consecutive case analysis of damaged fURS was performed to determine potential risk factors associated with fURS damage. RESULTS: The study group consisted of 423 reusable fURS procedures conducted between January 2013 and December 2016. During this period, 102 (24.11%) diagnostic fURS and 321 (75.89%) fURS for kidney stone therapy were performed. In 32 of 423 (7.57%) fURS cases, devices were postoperatively deemed defective, 9 of which were used for diagnostic procedures (9/102; 8.82%), 7 for stone removal (7/148; 4.73%), and 16 for stone removal and laser (Ho:YAG) application (16/173; 9.25%). The average cost per reusable fURS procedure was found to be €503.26. CONCLUSIONS: Disposable fURS is a more expensive option for high-volume centers. Based on our case analysis, laser disintegration treatment of multiple, large stones in the lower kidney pole of recurrent stone formers, as well as a steep infundibulopelvic angle (IPA ≤50°), seems to be the main risk factor for fURS damage. For these cases, disposable fURS may be a cost-effective alternative; however, a prospective comparison of economic outcomes between disposable and reusable fURS, together with confirmation of the proposed damage risk factors, is needed.
OBJECTIVE: The increasing number of flexible ureterorenoscopy (fURS) procedures, the fragility of devices, and their growing maintenance and repair costs represent a substantial burden for urologic departments. Disposable single-use fURS devices offer many advantages over reusable fURS. Among them, the LithoVue™ model shows the best clinical utility. In our study, we assessed the economic aspects of reusable fURS application compared with the potential costs and benefits of single-use fURS (LithoVue™). Indications for single-use fURS were proposed based on potential risk factors of reusable fURS damage. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This single-center retrospective analysis compared the actual cost of reusable fURS procedures with the potential costs of LithoVue™ based on the price offered by the manufacturer. Consecutive case analysis of damaged fURS was performed to determine potential risk factors associated with fURS damage. RESULTS: The study group consisted of 423 reusable fURS procedures conducted between January 2013 and December 2016. During this period, 102 (24.11%) diagnostic fURS and 321 (75.89%) fURS for kidney stone therapy were performed. In 32 of 423 (7.57%) fURS cases, devices were postoperatively deemed defective, 9 of which were used for diagnostic procedures (9/102; 8.82%), 7 for stone removal (7/148; 4.73%), and 16 for stone removal and laser (Ho:YAG) application (16/173; 9.25%). The average cost per reusable fURS procedure was found to be €503.26. CONCLUSIONS: Disposable fURS is a more expensive option for high-volume centers. Based on our case analysis, laser disintegration treatment of multiple, large stones in the lower kidney pole of recurrent stone formers, as well as a steep infundibulopelvic angle (IPA ≤50°), seems to be the main risk factor for fURS damage. For these cases, disposable fURS may be a cost-effective alternative; however, a prospective comparison of economic outcomes between disposable and reusable fURS, together with confirmation of the proposed damage risk factors, is needed.
Authors: N F Davis; M R Quinlan; C Browne; N R Bhatt; R P Manecksha; F T D'Arcy; N Lawrentschuk; D M Bolton Journal: World J Urol Date: 2017-11-24 Impact factor: 4.226
Authors: Giovanni S Marchini; Fábio C Torricelli; Carlos A Batagello; Manoj Monga; Fábio C Vicentini; Alexandre Danilovic; Miguel Srougi; William C Nahas; Eduardo Mazzucchi Journal: Int Braz J Urol Date: 2019 Jul-Aug Impact factor: 1.541
Authors: Giorgio Bozzini; Beatrice Filippi; Sulieman Alriyalat; Alberto Calori; Umberto Besana; Alexander Mueller; Dmitri Pushkar; Javier Romero-Otero; Antonio Pastore; Maria Chiara Sighinolfi; Salvatore Micali; Carlo Buizza; Bernardo Rocco Journal: Res Rep Urol Date: 2021-02-10