Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Single-Use Flexible Ureteroscopes

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Ureteroscopy

Abstract

Flexible ureteroscopy is one of the most commonly performed procedures in urology. Modern flexible ureteroscopes are narrow in diameter, highly maneuverable, and provide the surgeon with high-quality images of the urinary tract. Unfortunately, reusable ureteroscopes are expensive to obtain and often require frequent, costly repairs. Single-use flexible ureteroscopes now offer equivalent, and in some categories, superior performance to reusable scopes but without the need for repairs. They offer additional advantages regarding sterile processing and intraoperative structural failure. The cost analysis for the use of a reusable versus single-use scope is institution specific and will continue to change as new scopes enter the market.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 79.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 99.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 129.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  1. Bagley DH. Flexible ureteropyeloscopy with modular, “disposable” endoscope. Urology. 1987;29(3):296–300.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Sung JC, Springhart WP, Marguet CG, L’Esperance JO, Tan YH, Albala DM, et al. Location and etiology of flexible and semirigid ureteroscope damage. Urology. 2005;66(5):958–63.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Mager R, Kurosch M, Hofner T, Frees S, Haferkamp A, Neisius A. Clinical outcomes and costs of reusable and single-use flexible ureterorenoscopes: a prospective cohort study. Urolithiasis. 2018;46:587.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Landman J, Lee DI, Lee C, Monga M. Evaluation of overall costs of currently available small flexible ureteroscopes. Urology. 2003;62(2):218–22.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Tosoian JJ, Ludwig W, Sopko N, Mullins JK, Matlaga BR. The effect of repair costs on the profitability of a ureteroscopy program. J Endourol. 2015;29(4):406–9.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Legemate JD, Kamphuis GM, Freund JE, Baard J, Zanetti SP, Catellani M, et al. Durability of flexible Ureteroscopes: a prospective evaluation of longevity, the factors that affect it, and damage mechanisms. Eur Urol Focus. 2018. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.euf.2018.03.001.

  7. Martin CJ, McAdams SB, Abdul-Muhsin H, Lim VM, Nunez-Nateras R, Tyson MD, et al. The economic implications of a reusable flexible digital Ureteroscope: a cost-benefit analysis. J Urol. 2017;197(3 Pt 1):730–5.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Hennessey DB, Fojecki GL, Papa NP, Lawrentschuk N, Bolton D. Single-use disposable digital flexible ureteroscopes: an ex vivo assessment and cost analysis. BJU Int. 2018;121 Suppl 3:55–61.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Kramolowsky E, McDowell Z, Moore B, Booth B, Wood N. Cost analysis of flexible Ureteroscope repairs: evaluation of 655 procedures in a community-based practice. J Endourol. 2016;30(3):254–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Canales BK, Gleason JM, Hicks N, Monga M. Independent analysis of Olympus flexible ureteroscope repairs. Urology. 2007;70(1):11–5.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Carey RI, Gomez CS, Maurici G, Lynne CM, Leveillee RJ, Bird VG. Frequency of ureteroscope damage seen at a tertiary care center. J Urol. 2006;176(2):607–10. discussion 10

    Google Scholar 

  12. Taguchi K, Usawachintachit M, Tzou DT, Sherer BA, Metzler I, Isaacson D, et al. Micro-costing analysis demonstrates comparable costs for LithoVue compared to reusable flexible fiberoptic ureteroscopes. J Endourol. 2018;32(4):267–73.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Semins MJ, George S, Allaf ME, Matlaga BR. Ureteroscope cleaning and sterilization by the urology operating room team: the effect on repair costs. J Endourol. 2009;23(6):903–5.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Calio B, Hubosky S, Healy KA, Bagley D. MP89-17 bad out of the box: a report on pre-operative failure rates of reusable flexible ureteroscopes at a single institution. J Urol. 2018;199(4):e1212.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Ofstead CL, Heymann OL, Quick MR, Johnson EA, Eiland JE, Wetzler HP. The effectiveness of sterilization for flexible ureteroscopes: a real-world study. Am J Infect Control. 2017;45(8):888–95.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Chang CL, Su LH, Lu CM, Tai FT, Huang YC, Chang KK. Outbreak of ertapenem-resistant Enterobacter cloacae urinary tract infections due to a contaminated ureteroscope. J Hosp Infect. 2013;85(2):118–24.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Doizi S, Kamphuis G, Giusti G, Andreassen KH, Knoll T, Osther PJ, et al. First clinical evaluation of a new single-use flexible ureteroscope (LithoVue): a European prospective multicentric feasibility study. World J Urol. 2017;35(5):809–18.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Boylu U, Oommen M, Thomas R, Lee BR. In vitro comparison of a disposable flexible ureteroscope and conventional flexible ureteroscopes. J Urol. 2009;182(5):2347–51.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Schlager D, Hein S, Obaid MA, Wilhelm K, Miernik A, Schoenthaler M. Performance of single-use flexorVue vs reusable boaVision ureteroscope for visualization of calices and stone extraction in an artificial kidney model. J Endourol. 2017;31(11):1139–44.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Dale J, Kaplan AG, Radvak D, Shin R, Ackerman A, Chen T, et al. Evaluation of a novel single-use flexible Ureteroscope. J Endourol. epub 2017.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Talso M, Proietti S, Emiliani E, Gallioli A, Dragos L, Orosa A, et al. Comparison of flexible Ureterorenoscope quality of vision: an in vitro study. J Endourol. 2018;32(6):523–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Tom WR, Wollin DA, Jiang R, Radvak D, Simmons WN, Preminger GM, et al. Next-generation single-use Ureteroscopes: an in vitro comparison. J Endourol. 2017;31(12):1301–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Dragos LB, Somani BK, Sener ET, Buttice S, Proietti S, Ploumidis A, et al. Which flexible Ureteroscopes (digital vs. fiber-optic) can easily reach the difficult lower pole calices and have better end-tip deflection: in vitro study on K-box. A PETRA evaluation. J Endourol. 2017;31(7):630–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Dragos L, Martis SM, Somani BK, Rodriguez-Monsalve Herrero M, Keller EX, De Coninck VMJ, et al. MP68-03 comparison of eight digital (reusable and disposable) flexible ureteroscopes deflection properties: in-vitro study in 10 different scope settings. J Urol. 2018;199(4):e917.

    Google Scholar 

  25. Usawachintachit M, Isaacson DS, Taguchi K, Tzou DT, Hsi RS, Sherer BA, et al. A prospective case-control study comparing LithoVue, a single-use, flexible disposable Ureteroscope, with flexible, Reusable Fiber-Optic Ureteroscopes. J Endourol. 2017;31(5):468–75.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Proietti S, Somani B, Sofer M, Pietropaolo A, Rosso M, Saitta G, et al. The “body mass index” of flexible ureteroscopes. J Endourol. 2017;31(10):1090–5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Ludwig WW, Lee G, Ziemba JB, Ko JS, Matlaga BR. Evaluating the ergonomics of flexible ureteroscopy. J Endourol. 2017;31(10):1062–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Heemskerk J, Zandbergen HR, Keet SW, Martijnse I, van Montfort G, Peters RJ, et al. Relax, it’s just laparoscopy! A prospective randomized trial on heart rate variability of the surgeon in robot-assisted versus conventional laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Dig Surg. 2014;31(3):225–32.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Hubert N, Gilles M, Desbrosses K, Meyer JP, Felblinger J, Hubert J. Ergonomic assessment of the surgeon’s physical workload during standard and robotic assisted laparoscopic procedures. Int J Med Robot. 2013;9(2):142–7.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Seklehner S, Heissler O, Engelhardt PF, Hruby S, Riedl C. Impact of hours worked by a urologist prior to performing ureteroscopy on its safety and efficacy. Scand J Urol. 2016;50(1):56–60.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Marchini GS, Batagello CA, Monga M, Torricelli FCM, Vicentini FC, Danilovic A, et al. In vitro evaluation of single-use digital flexible ureteroscopes: a practical comparison for a patient-centered approach. J Endourol. 2018;32(3):184–91.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Salvadó JA, Velasco A, Olivares R, Cabello JM, Díaz M, Moreno S. PD35-11 new digital single-use flexible ureteroscope (pusen <sup>TM</sup>): first clinical experience. J Urol. 2017;197(4):e667.

    Google Scholar 

  33. Davis NF, McGrath S, Quinlan M, Jack G, Lawrentschuk N, Bolton DM. Carbon footprint in flexible ureteroscopy: a comparative study on the environmental impact of reusable and single-use ureteroscopes. J Endourol. 2018;32(3):214–7.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Davis NF, Quinlan MR, Browne C, Bhatt NR, Manecksha RP, D'Arcy FT, et al. Single-use flexible ureteropyeloscopy: a systematic review. World J Urol. 2018;36(4):529–36.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  35. Ozimek T, Schneider MH, Hupe MC, Wiessmeyer JR, Cordes J, Chlosta PL, et al. Retrospective cost analysis of a single-center reusable flexible ureterorenoscopy program: a comparative cost simulation of disposable fURS as an alternative. J Endourol. 2017;31(12):1226–30.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Keller EX, De Coninck V, Rodriguez-Monsalve M, Dragos L, Doizi S, Traxer O. MP68-05 taking advantage of single-use flexible ureteroscopes: techniques of forced tip deflection and forced torque. J Urol. 2018;199(4):e918.

    Google Scholar 

  37. Molina W, Warncke J, Donalisio da Silva R, Gustafson D, Nogueira L, Kim F. PD53-03 cost analysis of utilization of disposable flexible ureteroscopes in high risk for breakage cases. J Urol. 2018;199(4):e1047.

    Google Scholar 

  38. Huynh M, Telfer S, Pautler S, Denstedt J, Razvi H. Retained digital flexible Ureteroscopes. J Endourol Caser Rep. 2017;3(1):24–7.

    Google Scholar 

  39. Canales BK, Gleason JM, Hicks N, Monga M. Independent analysis of Olympus flexible Ureteroscope repairs. Urology. 2007;70(1):11–5.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Tanimoto R, Cleary RC, Bagley DH, Hubosky SG. Ureteral avulsion associated with ureteroscopy: insights from the MAUDE database. J Endourol. 2016;30(3):257–61.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Urology, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC, USA

    Brenton Winship & Michael Lipkin

Authors
  1. Brenton Winship
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Michael Lipkin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Michael Lipkin .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Southern Illinois University, School of Medicine, Springfield, IL, USA

    Bradley F. Schwartz

  2. University of Western Ontario, London, ON, Canada

    John D. Denstedt

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2020 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Winship, B., Lipkin, M. (2020). Single-Use Flexible Ureteroscopes. In: F. Schwartz, B., D. Denstedt, J. (eds) Ureteroscopy. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-26649-3_6

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-26649-3_6

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-030-26648-6

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-030-26649-3

  • eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation