Comparison of single-use flexible URS and re-usable flexible URS: Effectiveness, reliability, cost-efficiency analysis

Comparison of Single-use Flexible Ureterorenoscopy (SF-URS) with Reusable Fiberoptic Flexible Ureterorenoscopy (RF-URS) is one of the most popular subject in Endourology. Flexible Ureterorenoscopy (F-URS) is the gold standard method used in the treatment of kidney and ureteral stones smaller than 2 cm and together with ESWL.SF-URS has been widely used along with RF-URS. Our study aims to analyze retrospectively RF-URS and SF-URS in terms of effectiveness, reliability and cost. 200 patients who underwent F-URS due to renal stones were included in our study. Patients were divided into 2 groups: 100 patients who underwent SF-URS and 100 patients who underwent RF-URS. Mean age of the two groups was 49.58, 50.24 in the RF-URS and SF-URS groups, respectively. The presence of hypertension and diabetes, Body Mass-Index (BMI), and stone characteristics were recorded, and postoperative stone-free rates, duration of hospital stay, duration of operation, postoperative hemoglobin loss, postoperative urosepsis, and auxiliary procedures were evaluated. A cost effective analysis was carried out. The demographic data and stone characteristics of both groups were similar and there was no statistically significant difference (p> 0.05). The SF-URS group was found to be more advantageous in terms of the duration of operation (p0.05). The RF-URS group was found to be more advantageous after a cost-effective analysis (p

PDF

___

1. Johnson CM, Wilson DM, O’Fallon WM, et al. Renal Stone epidemiology: a 25-year study in Rochester, Minnesota. Kidney Int. 1979;16:624-31.

2. Kijvikai K, Haleblian GE, Preminger GM et al. Shock wave lithotripsy or ureteroscopy fort he management of proximal ureteral calculi: an old discussion revisited. J Urol. 2007;178:1157-63.

3. Maltaga BR. Contemporary surgical management of upper urinary tract calculi. J Urol. 2009;181:2418-34.

4. Ekici M, Ozgur BC, Senturk AB et al. Efficacy and reliability of retrograde intrarenal surgery in treatment of pediatric kidney stones. Cureus. 2018;10:3719.

5. Erkoc M,Agalarov S. RIRS (Retrograde Intrarenal Surgery) is safe and effective in aging male patients: A single surgeon experience Annals Med Res. 2019;26:2545-8

6. Galvin DJ, Pearle MS. The contemporary management of renal and ureteric calculi. BJU Int. 2006;98:1283-8.

7. Goldberg H, Golomb D, Shtabholtz Y et al.The "old" 15 mm renal stone size limit for RIRS remains a clinically significant threshold size. World J Urol. 2017;35:1947-54.

8. Moore B, Proietti S, Giusti G et al. Single-Use ureteroscopes. Urol Clin North Am. 2019;46:165-74.

9. Scotland KB, Chan JYH, Chew BH. Single-use flexible ureteroscopes: how dothey compare with reusable ureteroscopes? J Endourol. 2019;33:71-8.

10. Qi S, Yang E, Bao J et al. Single-Use Versus reusable digital flexible ureteroscopes for the treatment of renal calculi: a prospective multicenter randomized controlled trial. J Endourol. 2020;34:18-24.

11. Schmidt S, Miernik A.Extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL) versus percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL) or retrograde intrarenal surgery (RIRS) for kidney stones. Urologe A. 2015;54:1283-6.

12. Elbir F, Başıbüyük I, Topaktaş R et al .Flexible ureterorenoscopy results: Analysis of 279 cases. Turk J Urol. 2015;41:113-8.

13. Bai Y, Wang X, Yang Y et al.Percutaneous nephrolithotomy versus retrograde intrarenal surgery for the treatment of kidney stones up to 2 cm in patients with solitary kidney: a single centre experience. BMC Urol. 2017;17:9.

14. Berardinelli F, De Francesco P, Marchioni M et al. RIRS in the elderly: Is it feasible and safe? Int J Surg. 2017;42:147-51.

15. Salvadó JA, Olivares R, Cabello JM et al. Retrograde intrarenal surgery using the single - use flexible ureteroscope Uscope 3022 (Pusen™): evaluation of clinical results. Cent European J Urol. 2018;71:202-7.

16. Davis NF, Quinlan MR, Browne C et al. Single-use flexible ureteropyeloscopy: a systematic review. World J Urol. 2018;36:529-36.

17. Hennessey DB, Fojecki GL, Papa NP et al. Single-use disposable digital flexible ureteroscopes: an ex vivo assessment and cost analysis.BJU Int. 2018;3:55-61.

18. 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;8:418-25.

19. Erkol U, Agirbas I. Cost analysis in hospitals and an application of activity based costing method. Ankara Üniversitesi Tıp Fakültesi Mecmuası. 2011,64.