Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Comparing outcomes of single-use vs reusable ureteroscopes: a systematic review and meta analysis

  • Review
  • Published:
Urolithiasis Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Flexible ureterolithotripsy is a frequent urological procedure, usually used to remove stones from the kidney and upper ureter. Reusable uretero-scopes were the standard tool for that procedure, but recent concerns related to sterility and maintenance and repair costs created the opportunity to develop new technologies. In 2016, the first single-use digital flexible ureteroscope was introduced. Since then, other single-use ureteroscopes were developed, and studies compared them with the reusable ureteroscopes with conflicting results. The purpose of this study is to describe the literature that compares the performance of single-use and reusable flexible ureteroscopes in retrograde intrarenal surgery for urinary stones. A Systematic Review was performed in October 2022 in accordance with the Cochrane Handbook and the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and MetaAnalyses (PRISMA). A search in MEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of Science, Google Scholar and LILACS retrieved 10,039 articles. After screening, 12 articles were selected for the Meta-Analysis. No differences were found in stone-free rate (OR 1.31, CI 95% [0.88, 1.97]), operative time (MD 0.12, CI 95% [−5.52, 5.76]), incidence of post-operative fever (OR 0.64, CI 95% [0.22, 1.89]), or incidence of post-operative urinary tract infection (OR 0.63 CI 95% [0.30, 1.32]). No differences were observed in the studied variables. Hence, the device choice should rely on the availability, cost analysis and surgeons’ preference.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5

Similar content being viewed by others

Data availability

Data can be available upon request to the corresponding author.

References

  1. Sorokin I, Mamoulakis C, Miyazawa K et al (2017) Epidemiology of stone disease across the world. World J Urol 35(9):1301–1320

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Assimos D (2016) Surgical management of stones: american urological association/endourological society guideline. PART I J Urol 196(4):1153–1160

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Skolarikos A (2015) Outcomes of flexible ureterorenoscopy for solitary renal stones in the croes urs global study. J Urol 194(1):137–143

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Bozzini G (2017) A prospective randomized comparison among SWL, PCNL and RIRS for lower calyceal stones less than 2 cm: a multicenter experience : a better understanding on the treatment options for lower pole stones. World J Urol 35:1967–1975

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Fuchs GJ (2006) Milestones in endoscope design for minimally invasive urologic surgery: the sentinel role of a pioneer. Surg Endosc. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-006-0078-4

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Marshall VF (1964) Fiber optics in urology. J Urol 91(1):64066–64073

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Bagley DH, Rittenberg MH (1986) Percutaneous antegrade flexible ureteroscopy. Urology 27(4):331–334

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Butticè S, Sener TE, Netsch C et al (2016) LithoVueTM: a new single-use digital flexible ureteroscope. Cent European J Urol 69(3):302–305

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  9. Lusch A (2013) In vitro and in vivo comparison of optics and performance of a distal sensor ureteroscope versus a standard fiberoptic ureteroscope. J Endourol 27(7):896–902

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  10. Monga M, Hendlin K, Skenazy J et al (2004) A novel dual-diameter ureteroscope working channel: impact on irrigant flow. Urol 64(5):892–894

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Isaacson D (2017) Defining the costs of reusable flexible ureteroscope reprocessing using time-driven activity-based costing. J Endourol 31(10):1026–1031

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  12. Monga M (2006) Durability of flexible ureteroscopes: a randomized, prospective study. J Urol. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-5347(06)00575-1

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Chang CL, Su LH, Lu CM et al (2013) Outbreak of ertapenem-resistant Enterobacter cloacae urinary tract infections due to a contaminated ureteroscope. J Hosp Infect 85(2):118–124

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Davis NF, Mcgrath S, Quinlan M et al (2018) Carbon footprint in flexible ureteroscopy: a compar-ative study on the environmental impact of reusable and single-use ureteroscopes. J Endourol 32(3):214–217

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Mager R, Kurosch M, Höfner T et al (2018) Clinical outcomes and costs of reusable and single-use flexible ureterorenoscopes: a prospective cohort study. Urolithiasis 46(6):587–593

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Hennessey DB, Fojecki GL, Papa NP et al (2018) Single-use disposable digital flexible ureteroscopes: an ex vivo assessment and cost analysis. BJU Int 121:55–61

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Legemate JD (2019) Durability of flexible ureteroscopes: a prospective evaluation of longevity, the factors that affect it, and damage mechanisms. Eur Urol Focus 5(6):1105–1111

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Mrkobrada M (2015) CUA guidelines on antibiotic prophylaxis for urologic procedures. Can Urol Assoc J 9(1–2):13–22

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  19. Moore B, Proietti S, Giusti G et al (2019) Single-use ureteroscopes. Urol Clin North Am 46(2):165–174

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Carey RI, Martin CJ, Knego JR (2014) Prospective evaluation of refurbished flexible ureteroscope durability seen in a large public tertiary care center with multiple surgeons. Urology 84(1):42–45

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Abraham JBA (2007) Rapid communication: effects of Steris 1 sterilization and Cidex ortho-phthalaldehyde high-level disinfection on durability of new-generation flexible ureteroscopes. J Endourol 21(9):985–992

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Martin CJ (2017) The economic implications of a reusable flexible digital ureteroscope: a cost-benefit analysis. J Urol 197(3):730–735

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Taguchi K (2018) Micro-costing analysis demonstrates comparable costs for lithovue compared to reusable flexible fiberoptic ureteroscopes. J Endourol 32(4):267–273

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Ofstead CL, Heymann OL, Quick MR et al (2017) The effectiveness of sterilization for flexible ureteroscopes: a real-world study. Am J Infect Control 45(8):888–895

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Carey RI, Gomez CS, Maurici G et al (2006) Frequency of ureteroscope damage seen at a tertiary care center. J Urol. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2006.03.059

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Wendt-Nordahl G, Mut T, Krombach P et al (2011) Do new generation flexible ureterorenoscopes offer a higher treatment success than their predecessors? Urol Res 39(3):185–188

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Mourmouris P (2021) Comparison of a single-use, digital flexible ureteroscope with a reusable, fiberoptic ureteroscope for management of patients with urolithiasis. Arch Ital Urol Androl 93(3):326–329

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. José A, Salvadó JM et al (2019) Endoscopic treatment of lower pole stones: is a disposable ureteroscope preferable? results of a prospective case-control study. Cent Eur J Urol 72(3):280

    Google Scholar 

  29. Takazawa R (2022) development of microscopy apparatus switchable between fluorescence and ultralow-frequency raman modes. J Anal Methods Chem. https://doi.org/10.1155/2022/2694545

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  30. Huang F (2022) Reusable digital flexible ureteroscope to treat upper urinary calculi: a propensity-score matching analysis. Front Surg. https://doi.org/10.3389/fsurg.2021.778157

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  31. Baboudjian MBM (2021) Single use versus reusable flexible ureteroscopy for the treatment of urolithiasis: a comparative study of perioperative complications. Urology 1:66–69

    Google Scholar 

  32. Li Y (2021) Comparison of single-use and reusable flexible ureteroscope for renal stone management: a pooled analysis of 772 patients. Transl Androl Urol 10(1):483–493

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  33. Usawachintachit M (2017) A prospective case-control study comparing lithovue, a single-use, flexible dis- posable ureteroscope, with flexible reusable fiber-optic ureteroscopes. J Endourol 31(5):468–475

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  34. Salman MY, Bayar G, Dincer HR et al (2021) Comparison of reusable and single-use ureteroscopes for the treatment of medium-sized stones in the lower calyx: a prospective randomized study. Ann Clin Anal Med. https://doi.org/10.4328/ACAM.20446

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Kam J (2019) Single use versus reusable digital flexible ureteroscopes: a prospective comparative study. Int J Urol 26(10):999–1005

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Surgical Technique & Experimental Surgery Department, Universidade de São Paulo, São Paulo, Brazil

    Mikhael Belkovsky, Ronaldo Soares Maia, Everson Luiz de Almeida Artifon, José Pinhata Otoch & Jose Arnaldo Shiomi Da Cruz

  2. Urology Department, Hospital Alemão Oswaldo Cruz, São Paulo, Brazil

    Carlo Camargo Passerotti

Authors
  1. Mikhael Belkovsky
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Carlo Camargo Passerotti
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Ronaldo Soares Maia
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Everson Luiz de Almeida Artifon
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. José Pinhata Otoch
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Jose Arnaldo Shiomi Da Cruz
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

MB and JPO wrote the main manuscript text, MB JA and CC worked on data analysis, ELAA and LSM prepared figures and tables. All authors reviewed the manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jose Arnaldo Shiomi Da Cruz.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare no conflict of interests

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Belkovsky, M., Passerotti, C.C., Maia, R.S. et al. Comparing outcomes of single-use vs reusable ureteroscopes: a systematic review and meta analysis. Urolithiasis 52, 37 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00240-024-01537-8

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00240-024-01537-8

Keywords

Search

Navigation