Repair Rate and Associated Costs of Reusable Flexible Ureteroscopes: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

CONTEXT: The refined mechanics of a flexible ureteroscope (fURS) are vulnerable to damage. Sending the fURS for repair is costly and has driven interest toward estimating the resources used for fURS repairs. OBJECTIVE: To systematically review available literature and to estimate the total weighted repair rate of an fURS and the average repair cost per ureteroscopy. EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: A systematic review was conducted by searching the MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library databases. The average costs of all repairs identified in the included studies were extracted. A random-effect model was used to calculate the pooled total fURS repair rate. The total weighted repair rate and average cost per repair were multiplied to provide an average cost of repair per ureteroscopy procedure. EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS: We identified 18 studies that fulfilled the inclusion criteria, which included 411 repairs from 5900 investigated ureteroscopy procedures. The calculated weighted repair rate was 6.5% ± 0.745% (95% confidence interval: 5.0-7.9%; I2 = 75.3%), equivalent to 15 ureteroscopy procedures before repair. The average cost per repair was 6808 USD; according to the weighted repair rate of 6.5%, this corresponds to an average repair cost of 441 USD per procedure. Egger's regression test did not reveal a significant publication bias (p = 0.07). CONCLUSIONS: This is the first meta-analysis to estimate the repair rate of the fURS used for ureteroscopy. Our analysis demonstrates a repair rate of 6.5%, equivalent to 15 ureteroscopy procedures between fURS repairs and a repair cost of 441 USD per procedure. Ureteroscopy practices should consider fURS breakage rates and repair costs to optimize the use of reusable versus disposable devices. PATIENT SUMMARY: We reviewed available literature investigating the repair rate of a flexible ureteroscope (fURS). We found that fURSs are sent for repair after every 15 ureteroscopy procedures, corresponding to 441 USD per procedure in repair cost.

Development Methodology of the Novel Endoscopic Stone Treatment Step 2/A Training/Assessment Curriculum and a Roadmap on Developing Hands-on Training Curriculums in Future: An International Collaborative Work by European Association of Urology Sections.

Background: Basic simulation training in endourology was established with the endoscopic stone treatment step 1 (EST-s1), which is now recognized worldwide for training and examination. Following on from EST-s1, the endoscopic stone treatment step 2 (EST-s2) was started by the European Association of Urology (EAU) sections. Objective: We describe the methodology used in the development of EST-s2 assessment curriculum. Materials and Methods: The "full-life cycle curriculum development" template was followed for curriculum development, focusing on intermediate training of EST protocol with complex endourologic tasks. A cognitive task analysis (CTA) was run in accordance with EAU Urolithiasis guidelines. The protocol and its details underwent a first consensus by Delphi method with EAU Urolithiasis Section experts in March 2017. Once the outcome and metrics were decided, curriculum development was carried out. Purpose-built stones were developed, and simulator system requirement was defined. Preliminary testing was done in European Urology Residents Education Programme 2019 and in phase five the protocol was finalized with full tutor instruction sheet. Results: The EST-s2/A curriculum development took 38 months and involved EAU Uro-technology and urolithiasis sections with coordination from the European School of Urology training group. Starting from the initial CTA, a 1277-word revision with preliminary task description was produced. Nine intermediate skills were identified and included in the final training protocol. The training content and session evaluations were carried out by 26 experts and 16 final year trainees, respectively. Although the experts agreed that EST-s2/A protocol was well structured (96%), covered the complex endourologic maneuvers (92%), and was useful to optimize and improve hands-on-training (HoT) sessions (92%), the overall evaluation was scored 4.25/5 by trainees. Conclusion: We describe the development methodology for intermediate EST curriculum, which also provides a roadmap on developing other HoT protocols in future. Patients Summary: In this report we described the development of the novel intermediate training curriculum for EST, called EST-s2, which took 3 years of collaborative work inside the EAU. This article is aimed to strengthen the standards in curriculum development and clearly describe the background of this new EAU official endourology protocol.

Validation of the endoscopic stone treatment step 1 (EST-s1): a novel EAU training and assessment tool for basic endoscopic stone treatment skills-a collaborative work by ESU, ESUT and EULIS.

INTRODUCTION: The endoscopic stone treatment step 1 (EST s1) protocol has been developed after 2 years of collaborative work between different European Association of Urology (EAU) sections. OBJECTIVES: In this study, we added construct validity evidence to the EST s1 curriculum. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The EST-s1 curriculum includes four standardized tasks: flexible cystoscopy, rigid cystoscopy, semi-rigid URS and flexible URS. Validation was performed during the annual 2016 EUREP meeting in Prague. 124 participants provided information on their endoscopic logbook and carried out these 4 tasks during a DVD recorded session. Recordings were anonymized and blindly assessed independently by five proctors. Inter-rater reliability was checked on a sample of five videos by the calculation of intra-class correlation coefficient. Task-specific clinical background of participants was correlated with their personal performance on the simulator. Breakpoint analysis was used to define the minimum number of performed cases, to be considered "proficient". "Proficient" and "Non-proficient" groups were compared for construct validity assessment. Likert scale-based questionnaires were used to test content and to comment on when the EST-s1 exams should be undertaken within the residency program. RESULTS: 124 participants (105 final-year residents and 19 faculty members) took part in this study. The breakpoint analysis showed a significant change in performance curve at 36, 41, 67 and 206 s, respectively, corresponding to 30, 60, 25 and 120 clinical cases for each of the 4 tasks. EST-s1 was scored as a valid training tool, correctly representing the procedures performed in each task. Experts felt that this curriculum is best used during the third year of residency training. CONCLUSION: Our validation study successfully demonstrated correlation between clinical expertise and EST-s1 tasks, adding construct validity evidence to it. Our work also demonstrates the successful collaboration established within various EAU sections.

Alkalinizing Agents: A Review of Prescription, Over-the-Counter, and Medical Food Supplements.

Introduction: Kidney stones affect 1 in every 11 people in the United States each year. There is a significant high recurrence rate without a stone prevention protocol. Alkali citrate is beneficial in decreasing stone recurrence, but because of the cost and gastrointestinal side effects there is a low adherence rate. This study aims to serve as a review of some of the most commonly used alkalizing over-the-counter supplements that are advertised to prevent and treat kidney stones. Methods: Data were gathered by a comprehensive online literature search and company inquiries for kidney stone prevention supplements. An additional informal poll of the authors selected supplements that are most commonly taken by their patients. A total of eight supplements were evaluated for cost, alkali equivalent provided, dosing, and regulatory information. Results: Eight of the most commonly used supplements were reviewed with a focus on alkalizing agents. Information reviewed revealed dosing recommendations resulting in decreased citrate alkali equivalents per day compared with prescription-strength potassium citrate. Cost, peer-reviewed study results, and regulatory data were reviewed, tabulated, and analyzed. Cost per alkali equivalent was substantially decreased for each supplement compared with the prescribed drug. All supplements were found to be readily available online. Conclusion: Over-the-counter alkalizing agents are available to patients and may be an appropriate alternative to cost-prohibitive potassium citrate when treating urolithiasis patients. Additional testing will be necessary in the future to determine the efficacy of these supplements in the treatment and prevention of urinary stone disease.

Reusable flexible ureterorenoscopes are more cost-effective than single-use scopes: results of a systematic review from PETRA Uro-group.

Clinical data suggest an equipoise between single-use (disposable) and reusable flexible ureterorenoscope (fURS) in terms of scope characteristics, manipulation, view and clinical outcomes. The procedural cost of reusable fURS is dependent on the initial and repair cost, maintenance and scope sterilization and on the number of procedures performed/repair. We conducted a systematic review on the procedural cost ($) of fURS based on the individual authors reported data on the number of procedures performed before repair and to see if it is a feasible option compared to single use fURS. A systematic review carried out in a Cochrane style and in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) checklist using Medline, Scopus, CINAHL, EMBASE and Cochrane library for all English language articles. All papers on fURS cost analysis were searched from 2000-2018 (19 years), which mentioned the cost of fURS based on the number of procedures performed and the repairs needed (procedure/repair) as reported by the individual authors. Six studies reported on both the number of procedures performed with number of repairs needed and the cost calculated/procedure in the given time period. The number of uses/repair in various studies varied between 8-29 procedures and the cost per procedure varied between $120-1,212/procedure. A significant trend was observed between the decreasing cost of repair with the number of usages. With studies reporting on a minimum of 20 cases/repair the mean cost was around $200/procedure. This is contrast to the disposable scopes such as Lithovue ($1,500-2,000/usage) and Pusen ($700/usage). The cost of reusable fURS is low in centres performing a high volume of procedures. Similarly, when a reasonable volume of procedures is performed before scope repair, the cost is lower than the disposable scopes. Although, the disposable and reusable scopes seem to be comparable in terms of their performance, this review proves that reusable fURS are still more cost effective than disposable scopes.