Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Initial experience of comparison between two slimmest single-use flexible ureteroscopes: Indoscope Sleek (Bioradmedisys™) Versus Uscope PU3033A (Pusen™): A single-center prospective study

  • Original Article
  • Published:
World Journal of Urology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

A single-use digital flexible ureteroscope (fURS) has become a cost-effective alternative option to reusable fURS. The requirement of large-diameter access sheath for passage of 9.5 Fr single-use fURS has not always achieved in the first attempt in all cases leading to stage stone clearance. Recently, two slimmest single-use digital disposable fURSs have been introduced by Bioradmedisys™ and Pusen™ to mitigate the accessibility problem, without or with small size access sheath.

Primary objective was to compare in vivo performance and surgical outcomes with two single-use fURS: 7.5Fr Indoscope (Bioradmedisys™, Pune, India) and 7.5Fr Uscope PU3033A (Pusen, Zhuhai, China).

Methods

60 patients undergoing Retrograde Intrarenal Surgery (RIRS) with < 2 cm renal stones were prospectively randomized into: Group A (30 patients) for Indoscope and Group B (30 patients) for Uscope PU3033A. Pre-operative, intra-operative, and post-operative parameters were evaluated. In vivo visibility and maneuverability were rated on 5-point Likert scale by the operating surgeon. At one-month stone clearance was assessed with ultrasound and X-ray KUB. Data were analyzed using SPSS 23.0.

Results

Patient demographics and stone characteristics were comparable in both groups. Indoscope had significantly higher visibility (p < 0.05) than Uscope; however, the maneuverability scores were comparable between both the groups (p > 0.05).

28 patients in group A and 26 patients in group B achieved complete stone clearance (p = 0.38). Scope failure was observed in 1 case of group B (p = 0.31).

Conclusion

We conclude that 7.5Fr Indoscope has better vision than 7.5Fr Uscope and the rest of in vivo performances were comparable with similar outcomes and complications among both scopes.

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

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Emiliani E, Traxer O (2017) Single use and disposable flexible ureteroscopes. Curr Opin Urol 27(2):176–181

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. 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):655–659

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  3. Tom WR, Wollin DA, Jiang R, Radvak D, Simmons WN, Preminger GM, Lipkin ME (2017) Next-generation single-use ureteroscopes: an in vitro comparison. J Endourol 31(12):1301–1306

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Dragos LB, Somani BK, Keller EX, De Coninck VM, Herrero MR, Kamphuis GM, Bres-Niewada E, Sener ET, Doizi S, Wiseman OJ, Traxer O (2019) Characteristics of current digital single-use flexible ureteroscopes versus their reusable counterparts: an in-vitro comparative analysis. Transl Androl Urol 8(Suppl 4):S359

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  5. Meng C, Peng L, Li J, Li Y, Li J, Wu J (2021) Comparison between single-use flexible ureteroscope and reusable flexible ureteroscope for upper urinary calculi: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Front Surg. 8:691170

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  6. Li Y, Chen J, Zhu Z, Zeng H, Zeng F, Chen Z, Yang Z, Cui Y, Chen H, 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

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  7. Shvero A, Herzberg H, Zilberman D, Mor Y, Winkler H, Kleinmann N (2019) Is it safe to use a ureteral access sheath in an unstented ureter? BMC Urol 19(1):1–6

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Hudson RG, Conlin MJ, Bagley DH (2005) Ureteric access with flexible ureteroscopes: effect of the size of the ureteroscope. BJU Int 95(7):1043–1044

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Geavlete B, Cozma C, Geavlete P (2021) The, “no-touch” technique in the flexible ureteroscopic approach of renal stones. J Med Life 14(4):481

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  10. Doizi S, Kamphuis G, Giusti G, Andreassen KH, Knoll T, Osther PJ, Scoffone C, Pérez-Fentes D, Proietti S, Wiseman O, de la Rosette J (2017) First clinical evaluation of a new single-use flexible ureteroscope (LithoVue™): a European prospective multicentric feasibility study. World J Urol 35(5):809–818

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Turk C, NeIsius A, Petrik A (2020) EAU guidelines on urolithiasis. EAU Guidelines. Edn. presented at the EAU Annual Congress Amsterdam

  12. Wiseman O, Keeley F, Traxer O, Giusti G, Lipkin M, Preminger G (2016) MP51–03 comparison of a new single-use digital flexible ureteroscope (lithovue tm) to a non-disposable fibre-optic flexible ureteroscope in a live porcine model. J Urol 195(4):e682

    Google Scholar 

  13. Eisel M, Strittmatter F, Ströbl S, Freymüller C, Pongratz T, Sroka R (2020) Comparative investigation of reusable and single–use flexible endoscopes for urological interventions. Sci Rep 10(1):1–1

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Cetti RJ, Biers S, Keoghane SR (2011) The difficult ureter: what is the incidence of pre-stenting? Ann R Coll Surg Engl 93(1):31–33

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Salvadó JA, Olivares R, Cabello JM et al (2018) Retrograde intrarenal surgery using the single – use flexible ureteroscope uscope 3022 (PusenTM): evaluation of clinical results. Cent European J Urol 71:202–207

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Urology, Muljibhai Patel Urological Hospital, Dr Virendra Desai Road, Nadiad, Gujarat, 387991, India

    Shashank Agrawal, Pavan Survase, Abhishek G. Singh, Arvind P. Ganpule, Ravindra B. Sabnis & Mahesh R. Desai

Authors
  1. Shashank Agrawal
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Pavan Survase
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Abhishek G. Singh
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Arvind P. Ganpule
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Ravindra B. Sabnis
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Mahesh R. Desai
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

SA was involved in protocol/project development, data collection, data analysis, and manuscript writing/editing. PS wrote the manuscript. AGS and RBS edited the manuscript. APG contributed to manuscript writing/editing. MRD performed data analysis and manuscript editing.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Shashank Agrawal.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

None of the contributing authors have any conflicts of interest, including specific financial interests and relationships and affiliations relevant to the subject matter or materials discussed in this manuscript.

Research involving human participants and/or animals

This article does not contain any studies with animals performed by any of the authors. This study involves human subjects, after proper Institutional ethical committee presentation and clearance. This study has been performed in accordance with the ethical standards as laid down in the 1964 Declaration of Helsinki and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Informed consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in this study.

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

Agrawal, S., Survase, P., Singh, A.G. et al. Initial experience of comparison between two slimmest single-use flexible ureteroscopes: Indoscope Sleek (Bioradmedisys™) Versus Uscope PU3033A (Pusen™): A single-center prospective study. World J Urol 41, 2817–2821 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-023-04532-7

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-023-04532-7

Keywords

Search

Navigation