Single-use flexible ureteropyeloscopy: a systematic review

Purpose Data assessing the effectiveness of single-use flexible ureteropyeloscopy (FURS) are limited. This study evaluates and compares single-use FURS with conventional reusable FURS. Methods A systematic search using electronic databases (Pubmed and Embase) was performed for studies evaluating sin...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:World journal of urology 2018-04, Vol.36 (4), p.529-536
Main Authors: Davis, N. F., Quinlan, M. R., Browne, C., Bhatt, N. R., Manecksha, R. P., D’Arcy, F. T., Lawrentschuk, N., Bolton, D. M.
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Calcification (ectopic)
Disposable Equipment
Humans
Kidney Pelvis - diagnostic imaging
Kidneys
Medicine
Medicine & Public Health
Nephrology
Oncology
Studies
Topic Paper
Treatment Outcome
Ureter - diagnostic imaging
Ureteroscopes - classification
Ureteroscopy - instrumentation
Ureteroscopy - methods
Urinary Calculi - therapy
Urinary tract
Urology
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:Purpose Data assessing the effectiveness of single-use flexible ureteropyeloscopy (FURS) are limited. This study evaluates and compares single-use FURS with conventional reusable FURS. Methods A systematic search using electronic databases (Pubmed and Embase) was performed for studies evaluating single-use FURS in the setting of urinary tract stone disease. Outcome measures included a comparative evaluation of their mechanical, optical and clinical outcomes. Results Eleven studies on 466 patients met inclusion criteria. In vitro comparative data were available on three single-use flexible ureteropyeloscopes (LithoVue™, Polyscope™ and SemiFlex™) and clinical data were available on two (LithoVue™ and Polyscope™). The overall stone-free rate and complication rate associated with single-use FURS was 87 ± 15% and 9.3 ± 9%, respectively. There were no significant differences in procedure duration, stone size, stone clearance and complication rates when single-use FURS and reusable FURS were compared (duration: 73 ± 27 versus 74 ± 13 min, p  = 0.99; stone size: 1.36 ± 0.2 versus 1.34 ± 0.18 cm, p  = 0.93; stone-free rate: 77.8 ± 18 versus 68.5 ± 33%, p  = 0.76; complication rate 15.3 ± 10.6 versus 15 ± 1.6%, p  = 0.3). Conclusions Single-use FURS demonstrates comparable efficacy with reusable FURS in treating renal calculi. Further studies on clinical efficacy and cost are needed to determine whether single-use FURS will reliably replace its reusable counterpart.
ISSN:0724-4983
1433-8726
DOI:10.1007/s00345-017-2131-4