Clinical Comparison between Three Single-Use Flexible Ureteroscope Models: A Real-World Experience

Salvadó J.A.a,b· Elorrieta V.b· Cabello J.M.a,b· Cabello R.a· Velasco A.a,b

Author affiliations

aUrology Department, Clínica Santa María, Santiago, Chile
bMedicine Faculty, Finis Terrae University, Santiago, Chile

Log in to MyKarger to check if you already have access to this content.

Buy FullText & PDF Unlimited re-access via MyKarger Unrestricted printing, no saving restrictions for personal use
read more

CHF 38.00 *
EUR 35.00 *
USD 39.00 *

Select

KAB

Buy a Karger Article Bundle (KAB) and profit from a discount!

If you would like to redeem your KAB credit, please log in.

Save over 20% compared to the individual article price.

Learn more

Access via DeepDyve Unlimited fulltext viewing Of this article Organize, annotate And mark up articles Printing And downloading restrictions apply

Select

Subscribe Access to all articles of the subscribed year(s) guaranteed for 5 years Unlimited re-access via Subscriber Login or MyKarger Unrestricted printing, no saving restrictions for personal use read more

Subcription rates

Select

* The final prices may differ from the prices shown due to specifics of VAT rules.

Article / Publication Details

First-Page Preview

Abstract of Research Article

Received: July 01, 2022
Accepted: September 09, 2022
Published online: November 01, 2022

Number of Print Pages: 6
Number of Figures: 1
Number of Tables: 3

ISSN: 0042-1138 (Print)
eISSN: 1423-0399 (Online)

For additional information: https://www.karger.com/UIN

Abstract

Introduction: Studies comparing different single-use flexible ureteroscope (su-fURS) models are lacking. The objective was to compare three types of su-fURS: the Uscope 3022 (PUSEN), LithoVue (Boston Scientific), and EU-scope (Innovex). Methods: This was a retrospective study comparing the clinical outcomes from patients undergoing flexible ureteroscopy with one of the three su-fURS for upper urinary tract stone treatment between September 2019 and 2021. Analysis included total surgery and fluoroscopy time, post-procedure ureteral catheter, stone-free rate (SFR), and complications. Results: There were 104 cases with the Uscope 3022, 141 with LithoVue, and 80 with EU-scope. Groups were comparable in terms of stone size, location and density, and prior double-J stent presence. Multivariate analysis showed no difference in terms of SFR: 79% (Uscope 3022), 77.5% (LithoVue), and 81% (EU-scope); p = 0.38. Significant differences were found for total surgery and fluoroscopy time, as well as ureteral access sheath use (p < 0.001), favoring the EU-scope group. Discussion/Conclusion: The three devices evaluated are highly effective in treatment of kidney stones. Reasons for difference in total surgery and fluoroscopy time and access sheath use are not clear. However, this could be explained by technical aspects of these devices, such as external diameter, optical resolution, and field of view.

© 2022 S. Karger AG, Basel

References Marshall V. Fiber optics in urology. J Urol. 1964;91(1):110–4. Bagley DH, Rittenberg MH. Intrarenal dimensions. Guidelines for flexible ureteropyeloscopes. Surg Endosc. 1987;1(2):119–21. Bansal H, Swain S, Sharma GK, Mathanya M, Trivedi S, Dwivedi US, et al. Polyscope: a new era in flexible ureterorenoscopy. J Endourol. 2011;25(2):317–21. Schlager D, Hein S, Obaid MA, Wilhelm K, Miernik A, Schoenthaler M. Performance of single-use FlexorVue versus Reusable BoaVision ureteroscope for visualization of calices and stone extraction in an artificial kidney model. J Endourol. 2017;31(11):1139–44. Proietti S, Dragos L, Molina W, Doizi S, Giusti G, Traxer O. Comparison of new single-use digital flexible ureteroscope versus nondisposable fiber optic and digital ureteroscope in a cadaveric model. J Endourol. 2016;30(6):655–9. Doizi S, Kamphuis G, Giusti G, Andreassen KH, Knoll T, Osther PJ, et al. First clinical evaluation of a new single-use flexible ureteroscope (LithoVue™): a European prospective multicentric feasibility study. World J Urol. 2017;35(5):809–18. Schlager D, Obaid MA, Hein S, Wilhelm K, Schönthaler M, Gratzke C, et al. Current disposable ureteroscopes: performance and limitations in a standardized kidney model. J Endourol. 2020;34(10):1015–20. Salvadó JA, Olivares R, Cabello JM, Cabello R, Moreno S, Pfeifer J, et al. Retrograde intrarenal surgery using the single: use flexible ureteroscope Uscope 3022 (PUSEN™): evaluation of clinical results. Cent European J Urol. 2018;71(2):202–7. Monga M, Best S, Venkatesh R, Ames C, Lee C, Kuskowski M, et al. Durability of flexible ureteroscopes: a randomized, prospective study. J Urol. 2006;176(1):137–41. Gridley CM, Knudsen BE. Digital ureteroscopes: technology update. Res Rep Urol. 2017;9:19–25. Domenech A, Alliende C, Vivaldi B, Pizzi P. Comparison of pre- and post-surgical images of reusable and single use flexible ureteroscopes: a qualitative analysis. Cent European J Urol. 2021;74(3):459–63. Large T, Rivera M, Nottingham C, Agarwal D, Mellon M, Krambeck A. Initial experience with novel single-use disposable ureteroscopy: a prospective, single arm 90-day trial of the axis ureteroscope. Urol Pract. 2021;8(2):196–202. Marchini GS, Batagello CA, Monga M, Torricelli FCM, Vicentini FC, Danilovic A, et al. In vitro evaluation of single-use digital flexible ureteroscopes: a practical comparison for a patient-centered approach. J Endourol. 2018;32(3):184–91. In Leveillee RJ, Kelly EF. Impressive performance: new disposable digital ureteroscope allows for extreme lower pole access and use of 365 μm holmium laser fiber. J Endourol Case Rep. 2016;2(1):114–6. Yang E, Jing S, Niu Y, Qi S, Yadav PK, Yang L, et al. Single-use digital flexible ureteroscopes as a safe and effective choice for the treatment of lower pole renal stones: secondary analysis of a randomized-controlled trial. J Endourol. 2021;35(12):1773–8. Salvadó JA, Cabello JM, Moreno S, Cabello R, Olivares R, Velasco A. Endoscopic treatment of lower pole stones: is a disposable ureteroscope preferable? Results of a prospective case-control study. Cent European J Urol. 2019;72(3):280–4. Breda A, Angerri O. Retrograde intrarenal surgery for kidney stones larger than 2.5 cm. Curr Opin Urol. 2014;24(2):179–83. Pan J, Chen Q, Xue W, Chen Y, Xia L, Chen H, et al. RIRS versus mPCNL for single renal stone of 2–3 cm: clinical outcome and cost-effective analysis in Chinese medical setting. Urolithiasis. 2013;41(1):73–8. Hussain M, Acher P, Penev B, Cynk M. Redefining the limits of flexible ureterorenoscopy. J Endourol. 2011;25(1):45–9. Hyams ES, Munver R, Bird VG, Uberoi J, Shah O. Flexible ureterorenoscopy and holmium laser lithotripsy for the management of renal stone burdens that measure 2–3 cm: a multi-institutional experience. J Endourol. 2010;24(10):1583–8. Article / Publication Details

First-Page Preview

Abstract of Research Article

Received: July 01, 2022
Accepted: September 09, 2022
Published online: November 01, 2022

Number of Print Pages: 6
Number of Figures: 1
Number of Tables: 3

ISSN: 0042-1138 (Print)
eISSN: 1423-0399 (Online)

For additional information: https://www.karger.com/UIN

Copyright / Drug Dosage / Disclaimer Copyright: All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be translated into other languages, reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, microcopying, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher.
Drug Dosage: The authors and the publisher have exerted every effort to ensure that drug selection and dosage set forth in this text are in accord with current recommendations and practice at the time of publication. However, in view of ongoing research, changes in government regulations, and the constant flow of information relating to drug therapy and drug reactions, the reader is urged to check the package insert for each drug for any changes in indications and dosage and for added warnings and precautions. This is particularly important when the recommended agent is a new and/or infrequently employed drug.
Disclaimer: The statements, opinions and data contained in this publication are solely those of the individual authors and contributors and not of the publishers and the editor(s). The appearance of advertisements or/and product references in the publication is not a warranty, endorsement, or approval of the products or services advertised or of their effectiveness, quality or safety. The publisher and the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to persons or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content or advertisements.

留言 (0)

沒有登入
gif