Disposable versus Reusable Ureteroscopes: A Prospective Multicenter Randomized Comparison
Received 28 September 2020
Accepted for publication 12 January 2021
Published 10 February 2021 Volume 2021:13 Pages 63—71
Checked for plagiarism Yes
Review by Single anonymous peer review
Peer reviewer comments 2
Editor who approved publication: Dr Jan Colli
Giorgio Bozzini,1 Beatrice Filippi,2 Sulieman Alriyalat,3 Alberto Calori,1 Umberto Besana,1 Alexander Mueller,4 Dmitri Pushkar,5 Javier Romero-Otero,6 Antonio Pastore,7 Maria Chiara Sighinolfi,2 Salvatore Micali,2 Carlo Buizza,1 Bernardo Rocco2
1Urology Department, ASST Valle Olona, Busto Arsizio, Varese, Italy; 2Urology Department, Policlinico of Modena, Modena, Italy; 3Urology Department, Al-Balqa Applied University, Al-Salt, Jordan; 4Department of Urology, University Hospital Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland; 5Urology Department First Moscow State Medical University, Moscow, Russia; 6Department of Urology, Hospital Universitario 12 de Octubre, Madrid, Spain; 7Urology Department, Università “La Sapienza”, Latina, Italy
Correspondence: Beatrice Filippi
Urology Department, Policlinico di Modena, Via del Pozzo, n. 71, Modena, 41125, Italy
Tel +39 3403904011
Purpose: To compare reusable and disposable flexible ureteroscopes in terms of efficacy and safety for patients undergoing Retrograde Intrarenal Surgery (RIRS).
Patients and Methods: Patients with a renal stone eligible for RIRS were enrolled in this multicenter, randomized, clinical trial study. Patients were randomized into two groups: group A (90 patients) underwent RIRS with a reusable flexible ureteroscope and group B (90 patients) were treated with a disposable one.
Results: The patients’ demographics, stone features and pre-operative urine cultures were comparable between the groups. The Stone Free Rates (SFRs) were not significantly different (86.6% and 90.0% for group A and group B, respectively, p=0.11) and the mean cost for each procedure was comparable (2321 € in group A vs 2543 € in group B, p=0.09). However, the days of hospitalization and of antibiotic therapy were higher in group A (p ≤ 0.05). The overall complication rate in group A was 8.8% whilst in group B it was 3.3% (p ≤ 0.05); in particular, group A exhibited a greater number of major complications (Clavien score IIIa-V). The overall postoperative infection rate was 16.6% in group A and 3.3% in group B (p ≤ 0.05). Furthermore, none of the patients in group B developed urosepsis or had a positive blood culture, while 3 patients in group A did (p< 0.05).
Conclusion: The use of disposable ureteroscopes is characterized by significantly lower post-operative complications and infection rates, while having comparable costs and SFRs vis à vis reusable ureteroscopes. Clinical Trial Registration Number: ISRCTN92289221.
Keywords: RIRS, disposable ureteroscope, reusable ureteroscope, infection
This work is published and licensed by Dove Medical Press Limited. The full terms of this license are available at https://www.dovepress.com/terms.php and incorporate the Creative Commons Attribution - Non Commercial (unported, v3.0) License. By accessing the work you hereby accept the Terms. Non-commercial uses of the work are permitted without any further permission from Dove Medical Press Limited, provided the work is properly attributed. For permission for commercial use of this work, please see paragraphs 4.2 and 5 of our Terms.Download Article [PDF] View Full Text [HTML][Machine readable]