Clinical outcomes and costs of reusable and single-use flexible ureterorenoscopes: a prospective cohort study
- 395 Downloads
The purpose of this study is to analyze clinical outcomes and costs of single-use flexible ureterorenoscopes in comparison with reusable flexible ureterorenoscopes in a tertiary referral center. Prospectively, 68 flexible ureterorenoscopies utilizing reusable (Flex-X2S, Flex-XC, Karl Storz) and 68 applying single-use flexible ureterorenoscopes (LithoVue, Boston Scientific) were collected. Clinical outcome parameters such as overall success rate, complication rates according to Clavien–Dindo, operation time and radiation exposure time were measured. Cost analysis was based on purchase costs and recurrent costs for repair and reprocessing divided by number of procedures. In each group 68 procedures were available for evaluation. In 91% of reusable and 88% of single-use ureterorenoscopies stone disease was treated with a mean stone burden of 101 ± 226 and 90 ± 244 mm2 and lower pole involvement in 47 and 41%, respectively (p > 0.05). Comparing clinical outcomes of reusable vs. single-use instruments revealed no significant difference for overall success rates (81 vs. 87%), stone-free rates (82 vs. 85%), operation time (76.2 ± 46.8 vs. 76.8 ± 40.2 min), radiation exposure time (3.83 ± 3.15 vs. 3.93 ± 4.43 min) and complication rates (7 vs. 17%) (p > 0.05). A wide range of repair and purchase costs resulted in total to $1212–$1743 per procedure for reusable ureterorenoscopy whereas price of single-use ureterorenoscopy was $1300–$3180 per procedure. The current work provided evidence for equal clinical effectiveness of reusable and single-use flexible ureterorenoscopes. Partially overlapping ranges of costs for single-use and reusable scopes stress the importance to precisely know the expenses and caseload when negotiating purchase prices, repair prices and warranty conditions.
KeywordsSingle use Disposable Flexible ureterorenoscopy Costs Clinical outcome
No funding has been granted for the study.
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflict of interest
R. Mager, M. Kurosch, T. Höfner, S. Frees, A. Haferkamp and A. Neisius declare that they have no conflict of interest.
All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.
Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.
- 2.BostonScientificCorporation (2016) LithoVue single-use digital flexible ureteroscope. LithoVue-Brochure. https://www.bostonscientific.com/content/dam/bostonscientific/uro-wh/portfolio-group/LithoVue/LithoVueProductShots/SupportingMaterials/LithoVue-Brochure.pdf. Accessed 20 Feb 2017
- 3.Doizi S, Kamphuis G, Giusti G, Andreassen KH, Knoll T, Osther PJ, Scoffone C, Perez-Fentes D, Proietti S, Wiseman O, de la Rosette J, Traxer O (2016) First clinical evaluation of a new single-use flexible ureteroscope (LithoVue): a European prospective multicentric feasibility study. World J Urol. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-016-1936-x CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 4.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. https://doi.org/10.1089/end.2016.0051 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
- 11.Wilhelm K, Hein S, Adams F, Schlager D, Miernik A, Schoenthaler M (2015) Ultra-mini PCNL versus flexible ureteroscopy: a matched analysis of analgesic consumption and treatment-related patient satisfaction in patients with renal stones 10–35 mm. World J Urol 33(12):2131–2136. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-015-1585-5 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 12.Javanmard B, Razaghi MR, Ansari Jafari A, Mazloomfard MM (2015) Flexible ureterorenoscopy versus extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy for the treatment of renal pelvis stones of 10–20 mm in obese patients. J Lasers Med Sci 6(4):162–166. https://doi.org/10.15171/jlms.2015.12 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
- 13.Kumar A, Vasudeva P, Nanda B, Kumar N, Das MK, Jha SK (2015) A prospective randomized comparison between shock wave lithotripsy and flexible ureterorenoscopy for lower caliceal stones </=2 cm: a single-center experience. J Endourol 29(5):575–579. https://doi.org/10.1089/end.2013.0473 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 14.Dessyn JF, Balssa L, Chabannes E, Jacquemet B, Bernardini S, Bittard H, Guichard G, Kleinclauss F (2016) Flexible ureterorenoscopy for renal and proximal ureteral stone in patients with previous ureteral stenting: impact on stone-free rate and morbidity. J Endourol 30(10):1084–1088. https://doi.org/10.1089/end.2016.0045 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 22.Knudsen B, Miyaoka R, Shah K, Holden T, Turk TM, Pedro RN, Kriedberg C, Hinck B, Ortiz-Alvarado O, Monga M (2010) Durability of the next-generation flexible fiberoptic ureteroscopes: a randomized prospective multi-institutional clinical trial. Urology 75(3):534–538. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urology.2009.06.093 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar