Single-use flexible ureteropyeloscopy: a systematic review
- 472 Downloads
Data assessing the effectiveness of single-use flexible ureteropyeloscopy (FURS) are limited. This study evaluates and compares single-use FURS with conventional reusable FURS.
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.
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).
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.
KeywordsFlexible ureteroscopy Flexible pyeloscopy Flexible ureteropyeloscopy Single-use flexible pyeloscopy Disposable flexible ureteroscope
Niall Davis: Data collection, Data analysis, Manuscript writing; Mark Quinlan: Data collection, Data analysis, Manuscript writing; Cliodhna Browne: Data collection; Nikita Bhatt: Data collection; Rustom Manecksha: Data analysis; Frank Darcy: Data analysis; Nathan Lawrentschuk: Project development, Manuscript editing; Damien Bolton: Project development, Manuscript editing.
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.
Statement of human and animal rights
This article does not contain any studies with human participants or animals performed by any of the authors.
For this type of study formal consent is not required.
- 16.Johnson MT, Khemees T a, Knudsen BE. Resilience of disposable endoscope optical fiber properties after repeat sterilization. J Endourol. 2013;27(1):71–4Google Scholar
- 19.Buttice S, Sener TE, Netsch C, Emiliani E, Pappalardo R, Magno C (2016) LithoVueTM: a new single-use digital flexible ureteroscope. Cent Eur J Urol 69(3):302–305Google Scholar
- 29.Ozimek T, Schneider MH, Hupe MC, Wiessmeyer JR, Cordes J, Chlosta PL, Merseburger AS, Kramer MW (2017) Retrospective cost analysis of a single-center reusable flexible ureterorenoscopy (fURS) program: a comparative cost simulation of disposable fURS as an alternative. J Endourol. https://doi.org/10.1089/end.2017.0427 (epub ahead of print) PubMedGoogle Scholar