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 

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 

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 

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 

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 

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

Article  Google Scholar 

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

Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

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 

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 

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 

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 

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 

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 

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 

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 

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 

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 

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 

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

Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

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 

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 

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 

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 

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 

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 

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 

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 

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 

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 

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 

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 

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 

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 

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 

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