Disposable versus Reusable Ureteroscopes: A Prospective Multicenter Randomized Comparison

References

• Marshall VF. Fiber optics in urology. J Urol. 1964;91(1):110–114. doi:10.1016/S0022-5347(17)64066-7
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wendt-Nordahl G, Mut T, Krombach P, et al. Do new generation flexible ureterorenoscopes offer a higher treatment success than their predecessors? Urol Res. 2011;39(3):185–188. doi:10.1007/s00240-010-0331-0
   Google Scholar
• Sanguedolce F, Bozzini G, Chew B, et al. The evolving role of retrograde intrarenal surgery in the treatment of urolithiasis. Eur Urol Focus. 2017;3(1):46–55. doi:10.1016/j.euf.2017.04.007
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Türk C, Skolarikos A, Neisius A et al. EAU guidelines. Edn. Presented at the EAU Annual Congress Amsterdam 2020; 2020. ISBN 978-94-92671-07-3.
   Google Scholar
• Moore B, Proietti S, Giusti G, et al. Single-use ureteroscopes. Urol Clin North Am. 2019;46(2):165–174. doi:10.1016/j.ucl.2018.12.002
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ofstead CL, Heymann OL, Quick MR, et al. The effectiveness of sterilization for flexible ureteroscopes: a real-world study. Am J Infect Control. 2017;45(8):888–895. doi:10.1016/j.ajic.2017.03.016
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Legemate JD, Kamphuis GM, Freund JE, et al. Durability of flexible ureteroscopes: a prospective evaluation of longevity, the factors that affect it and damage mechanisms. Eur Urol Focus. 2019;5(6):1105–1111. doi:10.1016/j.euf.2018.03.001
   Google Scholar
• Scotland KB, Chan JYH, Chew BH. Single use flexible ureteroscopes: how do they compare to reusable ureteroscopes? J Endourol. 2019;33(2):71–78. doi:10.1089/end.2018.0785
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mrkobrada M, Ying I, Mokrycke S, et al. CUA guidelines on antibiotic prophylaxis for urologic procedures. Can Urol Assoc J. 2015;9(1–2):13–22. doi:10.5489/cuaj.2382
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ozimek T, Schneider MH, Hupe MC, et al. Retrospective cost analysis of a single-center reusable flexible ureterorenoscopy program: a comparative cost simulation of disposable fURS as an alternative. J Endourol. 2017;31(12):1226–1230. doi:10.1089/end.2017.0427
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hennessey DB, Fojecki GL, Papa NP, et al. Single-use disposable digital flexible ureteroscopes: an ex vivo assessment and cost analysis. BJU Int. 2018;121(Suppl 3):55–61. doi:10.1111/bju.14235
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dindo D, Demartines N, Clavien PA. Classification of surgical complications: a new proposal with evaluation in a cohort of 6336 patients and results of a survey. Ann Surg. 2004;240(2):205–213. doi:10.1097/01.sla.0000133083.54934.ae
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Breda A, Angerri O. Retrograde intrarenal surgery for kidney stones larger than 2.5 cm. Curr Opin Urol. 2014;24(2):179–183. doi:10.1097/MOU.0000000000000030
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bozzini G, Verze P, Arcaniolo D, et al. A prospective randomized comparison among SWL, PCNL and RIRS for lower calyceal stones less than 2 cm: a multicenter experience: a better understanding on the treatment options for lower pole stones. World J Urol. 2017;35(12):1967–1975. doi:10.1007/s00345-017-2084-7
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dale J, Kaplan AG, Radvak D, et al. Evaluation of a novel single-use flexible ureteroscope. J Endourol. 2017. doi:10.1089/end.2016.0237
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Molina W, Abrahams M, Lipkin M, Preminger G, Knoll K. Evaluating the image quality of novel single-use digital flexible ureteroscope. J Endourol. 2016;30(7):11. doi:10.1089/end.2016.0051
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Eisel M, Strittmatter F, Strӧbl S, et al. Comparative investigation of reusable and single-use flexible endoscopes for urological interventions. Sci Rep. 2020;10(1):5701. doi:10.1038/s41598-020-62657-w
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ventimiglia E, Somani BK, Et Traxer O. Flexible ureteroscopy: reuse? Or is single use the new direction? Curr Opin Urol. 2020;30(2):113–119. doi:10.1097/MOU.0000000000000700
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chung DY, Kang DH, Cho KS, et al. Comparison of stone-free rates following shock wave lithotripsy, percutaneous nephrolithotomy, and retrograde intrarenal surgery for treatment of renal stones: a systematic review and network meta-analysis. PLoS One. 2019;14(2):e0211316. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0211316
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cindolo L, Castellan P, Primiceri G, et al. Life-threatening complications after ureteroscopy for urinary stones: survey and systematic literature review. Minerva Urol Nefrol. 2017;69(5):421–431. doi:10.23736/S0393-2249.17.02787-4
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Berardinelli F, De Francesco P, Marchioni M, et al. Infective complications after retrograde intrarenal surgery: a new standardized classification system. Int Urol Nephrol. 2016;48(11):1757–1762. doi:10.1007/s11255-016-1373-1
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fan S, Gong B, Hao Z, et al. Risk factors of infectious complications following flexible ureteroscope with a holmium laser: a retrospective study. Int J Clin Exp Med. 2015;8(7):11252–11259.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kenters N, Huijskens EG, Meier C, et al. Infectious diseases linked to cross-contamination of flexible endoscopes. Endosc Int Open. 2015;3(4):E259–E265. doi:10.1055/s-0034-1392099
   Google Scholar
• Kumarage J, Khonyongwa K, Khan A, et al. Transmission of multi-drug resistant Pseudomonas aeruginosa between two flexible ureteroscopes and an outbreak of urinary tract infection: the fragility of endoscope decontamination. J Hosp Infect. 2019;102(1):89–94. doi:10.1016/j.jhin.2019.02.015
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chang C-L, Su L-H, Lu C-M, et al. Outbreak of ertapenem-resistant Enterobacter cloacae urinary tract infections due to a contaminated ureteroscope. J Hosp Infect. 2013;85(2):118–124. doi:10.1016/j.jhin.2013.06.010
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar