Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Single-use versus reusable ureterorenoscopes for retrograde intrarenal surgery (RIRS): systematic comparative analysis of physical and optical properties in three different devices

  • Original Article
  • Published:
World Journal of Urology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Introduction

Retrograde intrarenal surgery (RIRS) represents a standard option for kidney stone removal. However, RIRS is considered a cost-intensive procedure. Single-use flexible ureterorenoscopes have been introduced to improve budget predictability in RIRS. We assessed differences in physical and optical properties of single-use devices compared to standard reusable endoscopes.

Methods

In two single-use (LithoVue™, Boston Scientific; Pusen Uscope UE3011™), and one reusable ureterorenoscope (Flex-Xc™, Karl Storz), we investigated flow rates, deflection, illuminance, and intrapelvic pressure in a porcine kidney model. Subjective image quality was assessed using a standardized questionnaire. Common insertable devices were applied to investigate additional influence on physical properties.

Results

Significant variability in maximum flow rates was observed (Flex-Xc™: 25.8 ml/min, LithoVue™: 30.3 ml/min, Pusen™: 33.4 ml/min, p < 0.05). Insertion of a guide wire resulted in the highest reduction of flow rates in all endoscopes. Flection led to a reduction of absolute flow rates up to 9.4% (Flex-Xc™). Light intensity at 20/50 mm distance was 9090 lx/1857 lx (Flex-Xc™) and 5733 lx/1032 lx (LithoVue™) and 2160 lx/428 lx (Pusen™), respectively (p < 0.05). Subjective image quality score was highest using the Flex-Xc™ endoscope. During manipulation, maximum intrarenal pressure up to 66 mmHg (Pusen™) was measured.

Conclusions

Significant differences in physical and optical properties of single-use or reusable flexible ureterorenoscopes are present, with putative influence on surgical efficacy and complications. Further comparative evaluation of single-use and reusable endoscopes in a clinical scenario is useful. Moreover, utilization of ureteral access sheaths may be considered to avoid renal damage.

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

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Romero V, Akpinar H, Assimos DG (2010) Kidney stones: a global picture of prevalence, incidence, and associated risk factors. Rev Urol 12(2–3):e86–e96

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  2. Ordon M, Urbach D, Mamdani M, Saskin R, Honey RJ, Pace KT (2015) A population based study of the changing demographics of patients undergoing definitive treatment for kidney stone disease. J Urol 193(3):869–874

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Geraghty RM, Jones P, Somani BK (2017) Worldwide trends of urinary stone disease treatment over the last two decades: a systematic review. J Endourol 31(6):547–556

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Turk C, Petrik A, Sarica K, Seitz C, Skolarikos A, Straub M et al (2016) EAU guidelines on diagnosis and conservative management of urolithiasis. Eur Urol 69(3):468–474

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Cansino Alcaide JR, Reinoso Elbers J, Lopez Sanchez D, Perez Gonzalez S, Rodriguez, Aguilera Bazan A et al (2010) Flexible ureterorenoscopy (URS): technique and results. Arch Esp Urol 63(10):862–870

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Collins JW, Keeley FX Jr, Timoney A (2004) Cost analysis of flexible ureterorenoscopy. BJU Int. 93(7):1023–1026

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Taguchi K, Usawachintachit M, Tzou DT, Sherer BA, Metzler I, Isaacson D et al (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 

  8. Abraham JB, Abdelshehid CS, Lee HJ, Box GN, Deane LA, Le T et al (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 

  9. Afane JS, Olweny EO, Bercowsky E, Sundaram CP, Dunn MD, Shalhav AL et al (2000) Flexible ureteroscopes: a single center evaluation of the durability and function of the new endoscopes smaller than 9Fr. J Urol 164(4):1164–1168

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Stamatelou KK, Francis ME, Jones CA, Nyberg LM, Curhan GC (2003) Time trends in reported prevalence of kidney stones in the United States: 1976–1994. Kidney Int 63(5):1817–1823

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. 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 

  12. Quayle SS, Ames CD, Lieber D, Yan Y, Landman J (2005) Comparison of optical resolution with digital and standard fiberoptic cystoscopes in an in vitro model. Urology 66(3):489–493

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Jung H, Osther PJ (2015) Intraluminal pressure profiles during flexible ureterorenoscopy. Springerplus 4:373

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  14. Thomsen HS (1984) Pyelorenal backflow. Clinical and experimental investigations. Radiologic, nuclear, medical and pathoanatomic studies. Dan Med Bull 31(6):438–457

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Wilson W (2009) Intrarenal pressures generated during flexible deflectable ureterorenoscopy. J Endourol 4(2):135–141

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Zhong W (2008) Does a smaller tract in percutaneous nephrolithotomy contribute to high renal pelvic pressure and postoperative fever? J Endourol 22:2147–2151

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Turna B (2007) Percutaneous nephrolithotomy: variables that influence hemorrhage. Urology 69:603–607

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Wu C (2017) Comparison of renal pelvic pressure and postoperative fever incidence between standard- and mini-tract percutaneous nephrolithotomy. The Kaohsiung J Med Sci 33(1):36–43

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Bedke J, Leichtle U, Lorenz A, Nagele U, Stenzl A, Kruck S (2013) 1.2 French stone retrieval baskets further enhance irrigation flow in flexible ureterorenoscopy. Urolithiasis 41(2):153–157

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Pasqui F, Dubosq F, Tchala K, Tligui M, Gattegno B, Thibault P et al (2004) Impact on active scope deflection and irrigation flow of all endoscopic working tools during flexible ureteroscopy. Eur Urol 45(1):58–64

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Rehman J, Monga M, Landman J, Lee DI, Felfela T, Conradie MC et al (2003) Characterization of intrapelvic pressure during ureteropyeloscopy with ureteral access sheaths. Urology 61(4):713–718

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Gridley CM, Knudsen BE (2017) Digital ureteroscopes: technology update. Res Rep Urol 9:19–25

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  23. Ofstead CL, Heymann OL, Quick MR, Johnson EA, Eiland JE, Wetzler HP (2017) The effectiveness of sterilization for flexible ureteroscopes: a real-world study. Am J Infect Control 45(8):888–895

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Urology, Eberhard-Karls-University Tübingen, Hoppe-Seyler-Strasse 3, 72076, Tübingen, Germany

    Susanne Deininger, Luis Haberstock, Stephan Kruck, Eva Neumann, Ines Anselmo da Costa, Tilman Todenhöfer, Jens Bedke, Arnulf Stenzl & Steffen Rausch

Authors
  1. Susanne Deininger
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Luis Haberstock
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Stephan Kruck
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Eva Neumann
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Ines Anselmo da Costa
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Tilman Todenhöfer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Jens Bedke
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Arnulf Stenzl
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Steffen Rausch
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

Author contributions

SR., S.K., S.D.: Protocol development, S.D., L.H. S.R., S.K., E.N., I.C.: Data collection and experiments, S.R., S.D., T.T.: Data analysis and interpretation, A.S., J.B., S.K.: Study supervision, S.R., S.D, A.S.: Manuscript writing/editing, S.D., I.C.: Graphical design/figures.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Steffen Rausch.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical standards

The study was approved by the institutional review board and conducted in accordance with the Helsinki Declaration and START protocol. We take responsibility to the integrity of the data and accuracy of the reported study. All authors have made a substantial contribution to the information or material submitted for publication and approved the final version.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary material 1 (DOC 3427 kb)

Supplementary material 2 (DOC 227 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Deininger, S., Haberstock, L., Kruck, S. et al. Single-use versus reusable ureterorenoscopes for retrograde intrarenal surgery (RIRS): systematic comparative analysis of physical and optical properties in three different devices. World J Urol 36, 2059–2063 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-018-2365-9

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-018-2365-9

Keywords

Search

Navigation