Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:
https://ahro.austin.org.au/austinjspui/handle/1/16979
Title: | Single-use flexible ureteropyeloscopy: a systematic review | Austin Authors: | Davis, NF;Quinlan, MR;Browne, C;Bhatt, NR;Manecksha, Rustom P;D’Arcy, FT;Lawrentschuk, Nathan;Bolton, Damien M | Affiliation: | Department of Urology, Austin Health, Heidelberg, Victoria, Australia Department of Urology, Tallaght Hospital, Dublin, Ireland Trinity College Dublin, Dublin, Ireland Department of Urology, University Hospital Galway, Galway, Ireland |
Issue Date: | Apr-2018 | Date: | 2017-11-29 | Publication information: | World Journal of Urology 2018; 36(4): 529-536 | Abstract: | 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. | URI: | https://ahro.austin.org.au/austinjspui/handle/1/16979 | DOI: | 10.1007/s00345-017-2131-4 | ORCID: | 0000-0001-8553-5618 0000-0002-5145-6783 |
Journal: | World Journal of Urology | PubMed URL: | https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29177820 | Type: | Journal Article | Subjects: | Disposable flexible ureteroscope Flexible pyeloscopy Flexible ureteropyeloscopy Flexible ureteroscopy Single-use flexible pyeloscopy |
Appears in Collections: | Journal articles |
Show full item record
Items in AHRO are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.