Advertisement

World Journal of Urology

, Volume 36, Issue 4, pp 529–536 | Cite as

Single-use flexible ureteropyeloscopy: a systematic review

  • N. F. Davis
  • M. R. Quinlan
  • C. Browne
  • N. R. Bhatt
  • R. P. Manecksha
  • F. T. D’Arcy
  • N. Lawrentschuk
  • D. M. Bolton
Topic Paper

Abstract

Purpose

Data assessing the effectiveness of single-use flexible ureteropyeloscopy (FURS) are limited. This study evaluates and compares single-use FURS with conventional reusable FURS.

Methods

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.

Results

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).

Conclusions

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.

Keywords

Flexible ureteroscopy Flexible pyeloscopy Flexible ureteropyeloscopy Single-use flexible pyeloscopy Disposable flexible ureteroscope 

Abbreviations

FURS

Flexible ureteropyeloscopy

Notes

Author contribution

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.

Informed consent

For this type of study formal consent is not required.

References

  1. 1.
    Marshall VF (1964) Fiber optics in urology. J Urol 91(1):110–114CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bagley DH (1987) Flexible ureteropyeloscopy with modular, “disposable” endoscope. Urology 29(3):296–300CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Emiliani E, Traxer O (2017) Single use and disposable flexible ureteroscopes. Curr Opin Urol 27(2):176–181CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Doizi S, Traxer O (2017) Re: Evaluation of a novel single-use flexible ureteroscope. Eur Urol 72(1):152–153CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Boylu U, Oommen M, Thomas R, Lee BR (2009) In vitro comparison of a disposable flexible ureteroscope and conventional flexible ureteroscopes. J Urol 182(5):2347–2351CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG, The PRISMA Group (2009) Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. PLoS Med 6(7):e1000097.  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1000097 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Ding J, Xu D, Cao Q, Huang T, Zhu Y, Huang K et al (2015) Comparing the efficacy of a multimodular flexible ureteroscope with its conventional counterpart in the management of renal stones. Urology 86(2):224–229CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Huang Y-T (2013) Clinical effectiveness of the PolyScopeTM endoscope system combined with holmium laser lithotripsy in the treatment of upper urinary calculi with a diameter of less than 2 cm. Exp Ther Med 6(2):591–595CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Bansal H, Swain S, Sharma GK, Mathanya M, Trivedi S, Dwivedi US et al (2011) Polyscope: a new era in flexible ureterorenoscopy. J Endourol 25(2):317–321CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Bader MJ, Gratzke C, Walther S, Schlenker B, Tilki D, Hocaoglu Y et al (2010) The PolyScope: a modular design, semidisposable flexible ureterorenoscope system. J Endourol 24(7):1061–1066CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Usawachintachit M, Isaacson DS, Taguchi K, Tzou DT, Hsi RS, Sherer BA et al (2017) A prospective case–control study comparing LithoVue, a single-use, flexible disposable ureteroscope, with flexible, reusable fiber-optic ureteroscopes. J Endourol 31(5):468–475CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Doizi S, Kamphuis G, Giusti G, Andreassen KH, Knoll T, Osther PJ et al (2017) First clinical evaluation of a new single-use flexible ureteroscope (LithoVueTM): a European prospective multicentric feasibility study. World J Urol 35(5):809–818CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Proietti S, Dragos L, Molina W, Doizi S, Giusti G, Traxer O (2016) Comparison of new single-use digital flexible ureteroscope versus nondisposable fiber optic and digital ureteroscope in a cadaveric model. J Endourol 30(6):655–659CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Wiseman O, Keeley F, Traxer O, Giusti G, Lipkin M, Preminger G (2016) Comparison of a new single-use digital flexible ureteroscope (LithoVue) to a non-disposable fibre-optic flexible ureteroscope in a live porcine model. J Urol 195(4):e682CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Dale J, Kaplan AG, Radvak D, Shin R, Ackerman A, Chen T, et al (2017) Evaluation of a novel single-use flexible ureteroscope. J Endourol.  https://doi.org/10.1089/end.2016.0237 Google Scholar
  16. 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
  17. 17.
    Ghodoussipour S, Thompson E, Shah A, Mitra A, Deshmukh S, Dunn M (2017) Mp50-08 Limitations of the lithovue single use digital flexible ureteroscope. J Urol 197(4):e686–e687CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Doersch K, Elmekresh A, Milburn PA, Machen G, Hart K, El Tayeb M (2017) Pd35-08 Utilization of pressurized vs non-pressurized irrigation during ureteroscopy in the absence of ureteral access sheath: comparative retrospective study. J Urol 197(4):e665–e666CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 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
  20. 20.
    Siu JJ-Y, Chen H-Y, Liao P-C, Chiang J-H, Chang C-H, Chen Y-H et al (2016) The cost-effectiveness of treatment modalities for ureteral stones. Inq J Heal Care Organ Provis Financ 53(91):4695801666901CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Pietrow PK, Auge BK, Delvecchio FC, Silverstein AD, Weizer AZ, Albala DM et al (2002) Techniques to maximize flexible ureteroscope longevity. Urology 60(5):784–788CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Carey RI, Gomez CS, Maurici G, Lynne CM, Leveillee RJ, Bird VG (2006) Frequency of ureteroscope damage seen at a tertiary care center. J Urol 176(2):607–610CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Defidio L, De Dominicis M, Di Gianfrancesco L, Fuchs G, Patel A (2012) Improving flexible ureterorenoscope durability up to 100 procedures. J Endourol 26(10):1329–1334CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Sung JC, Springhart WP, Marguet CG, L’Esperance JO, Tan YH, Albala DM et al (2005) Location and etiology of flexible and semirigid ureteroscope damage. Urology 66(5):958–963CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Semins MJ, George S, Allaf ME, Matlaga BR (2009) Ureteroscope cleaning and sterilization by the urology operating room team: the effect on repair costs. J Endourol 23(6):903–905CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Muggeo E, Boissel A, Martin L, Sgro C, Michiels C (2015) Cost comparison of two reprocessing procedures of flexible ureteroscopes at the University Hospital of Dijon. Prog Urol 25(6):318–324CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Landman J, Lee DI, Lee C, Monga M (2003) Evaluation of overall costs of currently available small flexible ureteroscopes. Urology 62(2):218–222CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Kramolowsky E, McDowell Z, Moore B, Booth B, Wood N (2016) Cost analysis of flexible ureteroscope repairs: evaluation of 655 procedures in a community-based practice. J Endourol 30(3):254–256CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 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
  30. 30.
    Martin CJ, McAdams SB, Abdul-Muhsin H, Lim VM, Nunez-Nateras R, Tyson MD et al (2017) The economic implications of a reusable flexible digital ureteroscope: a cost-benefit analysis. J Urol 197(3):730–735CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Grasso M, Bagley D (1998) Small diameter, actively deflectable, flexible ureteropyeloscopy. J Urol 160(5):1648–1654CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Fojecki G, Hennessey D, Lawrentschuk N, Bolton D (2017) Comparison of parameters of standard reusable flexible uretero-renoscopes with a single use uretero-renoscope (LithoVueTM). J Urol 197(4):e686CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • N. F. Davis
    • 1
  • M. R. Quinlan
    • 1
  • C. Browne
    • 2
  • N. R. Bhatt
    • 2
  • R. P. Manecksha
    • 2
    • 3
  • F. T. D’Arcy
    • 4
  • N. Lawrentschuk
    • 1
  • D. M. Bolton
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of UrologyAustin HospitalMelbourneAustralia
  2. 2.Department of UrologyTallaght HospitalDublinIreland
  3. 3.Trinity College DublinDublinIreland
  4. 4.Department of UrologyUniversity Hospital GalwayGalwayIreland

Personalised recommendations