Skip to main content
Log in

Single-use flexible ureteropyeloscopy: a systematic review

  • Topic Paper
  • Published:
World Journal of Urology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

Abbreviations

FURS:

Flexible ureteropyeloscopy

References

  1. Marshall VF (1964) Fiber optics in urology. J Urol 91(1):110–114

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Bagley DH (1987) Flexible ureteropyeloscopy with modular, “disposable” endoscope. Urology 29(3):296–300

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Doizi S, Traxer O (2017) Re: Evaluation of a novel single-use flexible ureteroscope. Eur Urol 72(1):152–153

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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):2347–2351

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  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):224–229

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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):591–595

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  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):317–321

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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):1061–1066

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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):468–475

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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):809–818

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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):655–659

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  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):e682

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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. Johnson MT, Khemees T a, Knudsen BE. Resilience of disposable endoscope optical fiber properties after repeat sterilization. J Endourol. 2013;27(1):71–4

  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–e687

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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–e666

    Article  Google 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):302–305

    Google Scholar 

  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):4695801666901

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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):784–788

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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):607–610

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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):1329–1334

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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):958–963

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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):903–905

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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):318–324

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Landman J, Lee DI, Lee C, Monga M (2003) Evaluation of overall costs of currently available small flexible ureteroscopes. Urology 62(2):218–222

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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):254–256

    Article  PubMed  Google 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)

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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):730–735

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Grasso M, Bagley D (1998) Small diameter, actively deflectable, flexible ureteropyeloscopy. J Urol 160(5):1648–1654

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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):e686

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Contributions

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.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to D. M. Bolton.

Ethics declarations

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.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Davis, N.F., Quinlan, M.R., Browne, C. et al. Single-use flexible ureteropyeloscopy: a systematic review. World J Urol 36, 529–536 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-017-2131-4

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-017-2131-4

Keywords

Navigation