N F Davis1, M R Quinlan1, C Browne2, N R Bhatt2, R P Manecksha2,3, F T D'Arcy4, N Lawrentschuk1, D M Bolton5. 1. Department of Urology, Austin Hospital, Melbourne, Australia. 2. Department of Urology, Tallaght Hospital, Dublin, Ireland. 3. Trinity College Dublin, Dublin, Ireland. 4. Department of Urology, University Hospital Galway, Galway, Ireland. 5. Department of Urology, Austin Hospital, Melbourne, Australia. damienmbolton@gmail.com.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Data assessing the effectiveness of single-use flexible ureteropyeloscopy (FURS) are limited. This study evaluates and compares single-use FURS with conventional reusable FURS. METHODS: A systematic search using electronic databases (Pubmed and Embase) was performed for studies evaluating single-use FURS in the setting of urinary tract stone disease. Outcome measures included a comparative evaluation of their mechanical, optical and clinical outcomes. RESULTS: Eleven studies on 466 patients met inclusion criteria. In vitro comparative data were available on three single-use flexible ureteropyeloscopes (LithoVue™, Polyscope™ and SemiFlex™) and clinical data were available on two (LithoVue™ and Polyscope™). The overall stone-free rate and complication rate associated with single-use FURS was 87 ± 15% and 9.3 ± 9%, respectively. There were no significant differences in procedure duration, stone size, stone clearance and complication rates when single-use FURS and reusable FURS were compared (duration: 73 ± 27 versus 74 ± 13 min, p = 0.99; stone size: 1.36 ± 0.2 versus 1.34 ± 0.18 cm, p = 0.93; stone-free rate: 77.8 ± 18 versus 68.5 ± 33%, p = 0.76; complication rate 15.3 ± 10.6 versus 15 ± 1.6%, p = 0.3). CONCLUSIONS: Single-use FURS demonstrates comparable efficacy with reusable FURS in treating renal calculi. Further studies on clinical efficacy and cost are needed to determine whether single-use FURS will reliably replace its reusable counterpart.
PURPOSE: Data assessing the effectiveness of single-use flexible ureteropyeloscopy (FURS) are limited. This study evaluates and compares single-use FURS with conventional reusable FURS. METHODS: A systematic search using electronic databases (Pubmed and Embase) was performed for studies evaluating single-use FURS in the setting of urinary tract stone disease. Outcome measures included a comparative evaluation of their mechanical, optical and clinical outcomes. RESULTS: Eleven studies on 466 patients met inclusion criteria. In vitro comparative data were available on three single-use flexible ureteropyeloscopes (LithoVue™, Polyscope™ and SemiFlex™) and clinical data were available on two (LithoVue™ and Polyscope™). The overall stone-free rate and complication rate associated with single-use FURS was 87 ± 15% and 9.3 ± 9%, respectively. There were no significant differences in procedure duration, stone size, stone clearance and complication rates when single-use FURS and reusable FURS were compared (duration: 73 ± 27 versus 74 ± 13 min, p = 0.99; stone size: 1.36 ± 0.2 versus 1.34 ± 0.18 cm, p = 0.93; stone-free rate: 77.8 ± 18 versus 68.5 ± 33%, p = 0.76; complication rate 15.3 ± 10.6 versus 15 ± 1.6%, p = 0.3). CONCLUSIONS: Single-use FURS demonstrates comparable efficacy with reusable FURS in treating renal calculi. Further studies on clinical efficacy and cost are needed to determine whether single-use FURS will reliably replace its reusable counterpart.
Authors: Markus Juergen Bader; Christian Gratzke; Sebastian Walther; Boris Schlenker; Derya Tilki; Yasemin Hocaoglu; Ronald Sroka; Christian Georg Stief; Oliver Reich Journal: J Endourol Date: 2010-07 Impact factor: 2.942
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
Authors: Salvatore Butticè; Tarik Emre Sener; Christopher Netsch; Esteban Emiliani; Rosa Pappalardo; Carlo Magno Journal: Cent European J Urol Date: 2016-08-26
Authors: Maximilian Pallauf; Sabina Sevcenco; Christopher Steiner; Martin Drerup; Michael Mitterberger; Daniela Colleselli; Lukas Lusuardi; Thomas Kunit Journal: BMC Urol Date: 2020-05-18 Impact factor: 2.264
Authors: Maximilian Eisel; Frank Strittmatter; Stephan Ströbl; Christian Freymüller; Thomas Pongratz; Ronald Sroka Journal: Sci Rep Date: 2020-03-30 Impact factor: 4.379