Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Identifying factors associated with need for flexible ureteroscope repair: a Western Endourology STone (WEST) research consortium prospective cohort study

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Urolithiasis Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Maintenance of flexible ureteroscopes can involve high costs and administrative burden. Instrument fragility necessitates eventual repair, rendering scopes inaccessible during refurbishment. We conducted a multi-institutional prospective cohort study to identify perioperative factors influencing flexible ureteroscope durability. Patients undergoing flexible ureteroscopy (URS) at six United States endourology centers were enrolled between August 2014 and June 2015. Surgeon self-reported concern and satisfaction with scope performance as well as upward and downward angles of deflection for each scope tip were measured before and after each procedure. The need for scope repair was determined by the operating surgeon at the time of the procedure and recorded. 424 URS cases using 74 flexible ureteroscopes were identified. Scope repair was required in 28 cases (6.6%) involving 26 scopes (35.1%). Upon univariate analysis, shorter patient height, absence of guidewire use, presence of a ureteral access sheath (UAS), longer procedure time, larger stone size, lithotrite type, surgeon training level, and self-reported concern were associated with scope repair. Upon multivariate analysis, UAS use (OR = 2.53, p = 0.005) and degree loss of scope upward flexion during a case (OR = 1.02, p = 0.03) increased the odds of a scope needing repair while the use of safety guidewire decreased the odds of a scope repair (OR = 0.50, p = 0.045). Lithotrite use and surgeon concern were associated with degree loss of scope upward flexion. The use of a UAS, absence of a safety guidewire, and the loss of upward ureteroscope flexion should be considered when evaluating means of optimizing reusable ureteroscope durability.

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

Similar content being viewed by others

References

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

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. de la Rosette J, Denstedt J, Geavlete P et al (2014) The clinical research office of the endourological society ureteroscopy global study: indications, complications, and outcomes in 11,885 patients. J Endourol 28:131–139

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Tosoian JJ, Ludwig W, Sopko N, Mullins JK, Matlaga BR (2015) The effect of repair costs on the profitability of a ureteroscopy program. J Endourol 29:406–409

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. 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 30:254–256

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. 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 23:903–905

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Shah K, Monga M, Knudsen B (2015) Prospective randomized trial comparing 2 flexible digital ureteroscopes: ACMI/Olympus invisio DUR-D and olympus URF-V. Urology 85:1267–1271

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Karaolides T, Bach C, Kachrilas S, Goyal A, Masood J, Buchholz N (2013) Improving the durability of digital flexible ureteroscopes. Urology 81:717–722

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Knudsen B, Miyaoka R, Shah K et al (2010) Durability of the next-generation flexible fiberoptic ureteroscopes: a randomized prospective multi-institutional clinical trial. Urology 75:534–538

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Monga M, Best S, Venkatesh R et al (2006) Durability of flexible ureteroscopes: a randomized, prospective study. J Urol 176:137–141

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. 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 84:42–45

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Harris PA, Taylor R, Thielke R, Payne J, Gonzalez N, Conde JG (2009) Research electronic data capture (REDCap)–a metadata-driven methodology and workflow process for providing translational research informatics support. J Biomed Inform 42:377–381

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Kanda Y (2013) Investigation of the freely available easy-to-use software “EZR” for medical statistics. Bone Marrow Transplant 48:452–458

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Ghani KR, Wolf JS (2015) What is the stone-free rate following flexible ureteroscopy for kidney stones? Nat Rev Urol 12:281–288

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Afane JS, Olweny EO, Bercowsky E et al (2000) Flexible ureteroscopes: a single center evaluation of the durability and function of the new endoscopes smaller than 9Fr. J Urol 164:1164–1168

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Multescu R, Geavlete B, Georgescu D, Geavlete P (2014) Improved durability of Flex-Xc digital flexible ureteroscope: how long can you expect it to last? Urology 84:32–35

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Canales BK, Gleason JM, Hicks N, Monga M (2007) Independent analysis of olympus flexible ureteroscope repairs. Urology 70:11–15

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Kaplan AG, Lipkin ME, Scales CD, Preminger GM (2015) Use of ureteral access sheaths in ureteroscopy. Nat Rev Urol 13:135–140

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Breda A, Territo A, López-Martínez JM (2016) Benefits and risks of ureteral access sheaths for retrograde renal access. Curr Opin Urol 26:70–75

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Pietrow PK, Auge BK, Delvecchio FC et al (2002) Techniques to maximize flexible ureteroscope longevity. Urology 60:784–788

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Dutta R, Vyas A, Landman J, Clayman RV (2016) Death of the safety guidewire. J Endourol 30:941–944

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This work was supported by the educational grant from the Boston Scientific Foundation (TC), the US National Institutes of Health with grants K12-DK-07-006 (TC), and P20-DK-100863 (MLS, TC). This material is also the result of work supported by resources from the Veterans Affairs Puget Sound Health Care System, Seattle, Washington. The sponsors played no direct role in the study.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Urology, University of California, San Francisco, 400 Parnassus Ave., Sixth Floor, Suite A610, San Francisco, CA, 94143, USA

    Kazumi Taguchi, Marshall L. Stoller, Manint Usawachintachit, David T. Tzou, Angela Xu, Carissa Chu, Uwais B. Zaid, Eric R. Taylor, Krishna Ramaswamy & Thomas Chi

  2. Department of Urology, University of Washington, Seattle, USA

    Jonathan D. Harper & Mathew D. Sorensen

  3. Department of Urology, Oregon Health and Science University, Portland, USA

    Brian D. Duty

  4. Department of Urology, University of California, San Diego, USA

    Roger L. Sur & David L. Wenzler

  5. School of Medicine, University of California, San Francisco, USA

    Dylan Isaacson

  6. Department of Nephro-urology, Nagoya City University Graduate School of Medical Sciences, Nagoya, Japan

    Kazumi Taguchi

  7. Division of Urology, Faculty of Medicine, King Chulalongkorn Memorial Hospital, Chulalongkorn University, Bangkok, Thailand

    Manint Usawachintachit

  8. Division of Urology, Department of Veteran Affairs Medical Center, Seattle, WA, USA

    Mathew D. Sorensen

Authors
  1. Kazumi Taguchi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Jonathan D. Harper
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Marshall L. Stoller
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Brian D. Duty
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Mathew D. Sorensen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Roger L. Sur
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Manint Usawachintachit
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. David T. Tzou
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. David L. Wenzler
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  10. Dylan Isaacson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  11. Angela Xu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  12. Carissa Chu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  13. Uwais B. Zaid
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  14. Eric R. Taylor
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  15. Krishna Ramaswamy
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  16. Thomas Chi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Thomas Chi.

Ethics declarations

Funding

This study was funded by the educational grant from the Boston Scientific Foundation, the US National Institutes of Health with grants K12-DK-07-006, and P20-DK-100863.

Conflict of interest

Marshall L. Stoller and Thomas Chi serve as paid speakers and consultants for Boston Scientific Corporation and have received educational grant funding from Richard Wolf. Marshall L. Stoller has served as a paid speaker for the Karl Storz Company.

Ethnical approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of each institutional research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki Declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Informed consent

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

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Taguchi, K., Harper, J.D., Stoller, M.L. et al. Identifying factors associated with need for flexible ureteroscope repair: a Western Endourology STone (WEST) research consortium prospective cohort study. Urolithiasis 46, 559–566 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00240-017-1013-y

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00240-017-1013-y

Keywords

Search

Navigation