Thomas Hughes1, Amelia Pietropaolo2, Patrick Jones2, Marco Oderda3, Paolo Gontero3, Bhaskar K Somani2. 1. Urology Department, University Hospital Southampton NHS Trust, Tremona Road, Southampton, SO16 6YD, UK. t.hughes@doctors.org.uk. 2. Urology Department, University Hospital Southampton NHS Trust, Tremona Road, Southampton, SO16 6YD, UK. 3. Division of Urology, Department of Surgical Sciences, Città della Salute e della Scienza di Torino - Molinette Hospital, University of Torino, Torino, Italy.
Abstract
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: To present the latest evidence related to the outcomes and cost of single-use, disposable ureteric stent removal system (Isiris). RECENT FINDINGS: Our review suggests that compared to a reusable flexible cystoscope (re-FC), a disposable flexible cystoscope (d-FC) with built-in grasper (Isiris) significantly reduced procedural time and provided a cost benefit when the latter was used in a ward or outpatient clinic-based setting. The use of d-FC also allowed endoscopy slots to be used for other urgent diagnostic procedures. Disposable FCs are effective and safe for ureteric stent removal. They offer greater flexibility and, in most cases, have been demonstrated to be cost-effective compared to re-FCs. They are at their most useful in remote, low-volume centres, in less well-developed countries and in centres where large demand is placed on endoscopy resources.
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: To present the latest evidence related to the outcomes and cost of single-use, disposable ureteric stent removal system (Isiris). RECENT FINDINGS: Our review suggests that compared to a reusable flexible cystoscope (re-FC), a disposable flexible cystoscope (d-FC) with built-in grasper (Isiris) significantly reduced procedural time and provided a cost benefit when the latter was used in a ward or outpatient clinic-based setting. The use of d-FC also allowed endoscopy slots to be used for other urgent diagnostic procedures. Disposable FCs are effective and safe for ureteric stent removal. They offer greater flexibility and, in most cases, have been demonstrated to be cost-effective compared to re-FCs. They are at their most useful in remote, low-volume centres, in less well-developed countries and in centres where large demand is placed on endoscopy resources.
Authors: Steeve Doizi; Guido Kamphuis; Guido Giusti; J L Palmero; J M Patterson; Silvia Proietti; Michael Straub; Jean de la Rosette; Olivier Traxer Journal: World J Urol Date: 2016-12-17 Impact factor: 4.226
Authors: Emma Louise Baston; Sophie Wellum; Zosia Bredow; Guy Storey; Anne Palmer; David van Dellen; Ben R Grey Journal: Cent European J Urol Date: 2018-03-28