Effects of Repeated Use of Disposable FURS on Efficiency, Safety and Cost Analysis

Abstract

Purpose: In this study, we aimed to examine and evaluate the results of retrograde intrarenal surgery (RIRS) performed with reusable and disposable flexible ureteroscope (FURS) devices in our clinic. Methods: In total, we included 96 patients who underwent RIRS surgery for kidney stones with reusable FURS (n = 49) and disposable FURS (n = 47). There were noted preoperative demographic data and stone characteristics of the patients. Also, operation time, fluoroscopy time, hospitalization time, urethral catheter removal time, return to work time, complication rates and cost analyzes were collected and analyzed. Results: There were no significant differences in terms of demographic characteristics of retrospectively analyzed the data of 96 patients. In addition, the comparison made in terms of operative and postoperative results in both groups was similar. We determined significant difference for mean cost per case compared two groups. There were cost per case $ 293,87 in group 1 and $ 191,48 in group 2. Conclusion: We determined that the repeated use of disposable FURS compared in terms of cost analysis is a safe, effective and low cost method without increasing the infection frequency.

Keywords

• reusable FURS
• disposable FURS
• cost analysis
• repeated use

References

1. Afane JS, Olweny EO, Bercowsky E, Sundaram CP, Dunn MD, Shalhav AL, et al. Flexible ureteroscopes: a single center evaluation of the durability and function of the new endoscopes smaller than 9Fr. J Urol. 2000;164(4):1164-8.
2. Bozzini G, Filippi B, Alriyalat S, Calori A, Besana A, Mueller A, et al. Disposable versus Reusable Ureteroscopes: A Prospective Multicenter Randomized Comparison. Res Rep Urol. 2021;13:63–71. Emiliani E, Traxer O. Single use and disposable flexible ureteroscopes. Curr Opin Urol 2017; 27(2):176–81.
3. Geraghty R, Abourmarzouk O, Rai B, Biyani CS, Rukin NJ, Somani BK. Evidence for Ureterorenoscopy and Laser Fragmentation (URSL) for Large Renal Stones in the Modern Era. Curr Urol Rep. 2015;16(8):54.
4. Hennessey DB, Fojecki GL, Papa NP, Lawrentschuk N, Bolton D. Single-use disposable digital flexible ureteroscopes: an ex vivo assessment and cost analysis. BJU Int. 2018;121(3):55–61.
5. Johnston TJ, Baard J, de la Rosette J, Doizi S, Giusti G, Knoll T, et al. A clinical evaluation of the new digital single-use flexible ureteroscope (UscopePU3022): an international prospective multicentered study. Cent European J Urol. 2018;71(4):453-61.
6. Karakose A, Aydogdu O, Atesci YZ. The Use of the Amplatz Sheath in Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy: Does Amplatz Sheath Size Matter? Curr Urol. 2013;7(3):127–31.
7. Karakose A, Yüksel MB. An analysis of the impact on cost-effectiveness of re-use of the instruments in ureteroscopic urinary stone surgery. New J Urol. 2012;7(1): 21-5.
8. Karakose A, Alp T, Guner ND, Citlak MB , Aydin S. The place of andrological cases in our general urology practice. Turk J Urol. 2010;36(1):49-54.

9. Karakose A, Aydogdu O, Atesci YZ. Unilateral complete ureteral duplication with distal ureteral stone: A rare entity. Can Urol Assoc J. 2013;7(7-8):511-2.
10. Karakose A, Yüksel MB. An extremely rare complicatio of double-j stenting: renal parenchymal perforation with no hematoma. Curr Urol. 2011;5(3):165-8.
11. Kramolowsky E, McDowell Z, Moore B, Booth B, Wood N.. Cost Analysis of Flexible Ureteroscope Repairs: Evaluation of 655 Procedures in a Community-Based Practice. J Endourol. 2016;30(3):254-6.
12. Legemate JD, Kamphuis GM, Freund JE, Baard J, Oussoren HW, Spijkerman IJB, et al. Pre-Use Ureteroscope Contamination after High Level Disinfection: Reprocessing Effectiveness and the Relation with Cumulative Ureteroscope Use. J Urol. 2019; 201(6):1144-51.
13. Sanguedolce F, Bozzini G, Chew B, Kallidonis P, Rosette J. The evolving role of retrograde intrarenal surgery in the treatment of urolithiasis. Eur Urol Focus. 2017;3(1):46–55.
14. Serter S, Sahin E, Yildirim UM, Arslan M, Karakose A. Unenhanced computed tomography findings of renal papillae in patients with a ureteral stone. Clin Invest Med. 2016;39(6):27518.
15. Taguchi K, Usawachintachit M, Tzou DT, Sherer BA, Metzler I, Isaacson D, et al. Micro-Costing Analysis Demonstrates Comparable Costs for LithoVue Compared to Reusable Flexible Fiberoptic Ureteroscopes. J Endourol. 2018;32(4):267-73.
16. 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.
17. Ventimiglia E, Godínez AJ, Traxer O, Somani BK. Cost comparison of single-use versus reusable flexible ureteroscope: A systematic review. Turk J Urol.2020;46(1):40-5.
18. Yitgin Y, Karakose A, Akdeniz E. Our experience of retrograde intrarenal surgery in the treatment of upper urinary tract stones. Endourol Bull. 2021;13(1):23-8.