Single use flexible ureteroscopes: a review of current technologies and cost effectiveness analysis.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Flexible ureteroscopy (fURS) has evolved into both diagnostic and therapeutic modalities. Our review discusses the cost-effectiveness of single use flexible ureteroscopes (su-fURS) and the use of these instruments in routine urological practice. RECENT FINDINGS: There are studies which support the use of su-fURS with an argument of both cost and clinical utility over reusable flexible ureteroscopes (ru-fURS). However, the cost may vary across countries, hence is difficult to compare the results based on the current literature. Perhaps therefore there is a role for hybrid strategy incorporating ru- and su-fURS, where su-fURS are employed in complex endourological cases with a high risk of scope damage or fracture to preserve ru-fURS, with the ability to maintain clinical activity in such an event. SUMMARY: While there seems to be some cost advantages with su-fURS with reduced sterilization and maintenance costs, the data supporting it is sparse and limited. This choice of scope would depend on the durability of ru-fURS, procedural volumes, limited availability of sterilization units in some centers and potential risk of infectious complications. It is time that cost-benefit analysis is conducted with defined outcomes for a given healthcare set-up to help with the decision making on the type of scope that best serves their needs.

The impact of single-use digital flexible cystoscope for double J removal on hospital costs and work organization: A multicentric evaluation.

BACKGROUND: Isiris-α® is a single-use digital flexible cystoscope with an integrated grasper designed for double J (DJ) stent removal. Aim of this study was to conduct a multicentric evaluation of the costs and criticalities of stent removals performed with Isiris®-α in different hospitals and health systems, as compared to other DJ removal procedures. METHODS: After gathering 10 institutions worldwide with experience on Isiris-α®, we performed an analysis of the reported costs of DJ removal with Isiris-α®, as compared to the traditional reusable equipment used in each institution. The cost evaluation included instrument purchase, Endoscopic Room (EnR)/ Operatory Room (OR) occupancy, medical staff, instrument disposal, maintenance, repairs, decontamination or sterilization of reusable devices. RESULTS: The main factor affecting the costs of the procedure was OR/EnR occupancy. Decontamination and sterilization accounted for a less important part of total costs. Isiris-α® was more profitable in institutions where DJ removal is usually performed in the EnR/OR, allowing to transfer the procedure to outpatient clinic, with a significant cost saving and EnR/OR time saving to be allocated to other activities. In the only institution where DJ removal was already performed in outpatient clinics, there is a slight cost difference in favor of reusable instruments in high-volume institutions, given a sufficient number to guarantee the turnover. CONCLUSION: Isiris-α® leads to significant cost benefit in the institutions where DJ removal is routinely performed in EnR/OR, and brings significant improvement in organization, cost impact and turnover.

Assessment of single-probe dual-energy lithotripters in percutaneous nephrolithotomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis of preclinical and clinical studies.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the safety and efficacy of single-probe dual-energy (SPDE) lithotripters in patients undergoing percutaneous nephrolithotripsy (PCNL) through a systematic review and meta-analysis. METHODS: We searched PubMed, Cochrane Library, Scopus and Embase databases until July 2022 for any preclinical or clinical studies, exploring the safety and efficacy of different SPDE lithotripters in patients undergoing PCNL. We performed a meta-analysis to compare stone-free rate, bleeding, or other complications and mean operative time between SPDE lithotripters and other lithotripters (PROSPERO: CRD42021285631). RESULTS: We included 16 studies (six preclinical, seven observational and three randomized with 625 participants) in the systematic review and four in the meta-analysis. Preclinical studies suggest that SPDE lithotripters are safe and effective for the management of renal stones. Among clinical studies, four studies assessed Trilogy with no comparative arm, two compared Trilogy or ShockPulse with a dual-probe dual-energy lithotripter, two compared Trilogy with a laser, one compared ShockPulse with a pneumatic lithotripter, and one directly compared Trilogy with ShockPulse. Comparing SPDE lithotripters to other lithotripters, no significant differences were demonstrated in stone free rate (OR 1.13, 95% CI 0.53-2.38, I2 = 0%), postoperative blood transfusion (OR 1.33, 95% CI 0.34-5.19, I2 = 0%), embolization (OR 0.45, 95% CI 0.02-12.06), operative time (WMD: 2.82 min, 95% CI -7.31-12.95, I2 = 78%) and postoperative complications based on the Clavien-Dindo classification. CONCLUSIONS: SPDE lithotripters represent a promising treatment modality for patients requiring PCNL. Despite the initial encouraging findings of preclinical and isolated clinical studies, it seems that Trilogy or ShockPulse provide similar efficiency compared to older generation devices.

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.

Outcomes and Cost Evaluation Related to a Single-Use, Disposable Ureteric Stent Removal System: a Systematic Review of the Literature.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: To present the latest evidence related to the outcomes and cost of single-use, disposable ureteric stent removal system (Isiris). RECENT FINDINGS: Our review suggests that compared to a reusable flexible cystoscope (re-FC), a disposable flexible cystoscope (d-FC) with built-in grasper (Isiris) significantly reduced procedural time and provided a cost benefit when the latter was used in a ward or outpatient clinic-based setting. The use of d-FC also allowed endoscopy slots to be used for other urgent diagnostic procedures. Disposable FCs are effective and safe for ureteric stent removal. They offer greater flexibility and, in most cases, have been demonstrated to be cost-effective compared to re-FCs. They are at their most useful in remote, low-volume centres, in less well-developed countries and in centres where large demand is placed on endoscopy resources.

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.

Lessons Learnt (Clinical Outcomes and Cost Savings) from Virtual Stone Clinic and Their Application in the Era Post-COVID-19: Prospective Outcomes over a 6-Year Period from a University Teaching Hospital.

Introduction: We introduced a nurse-led telephone-based virtual stone clinic (VSC) follow-up for the surveillance of patients with asymptomatic renal calculi or those at a high risk of recurrent kidney stone disease (KSD). The aim of this study was to look at the outcomes of VSC and its role in the post-COVID era. Methods: Prospective outcomes audit was done for all patients referred to the VSC for a 6-year period (March 2014-April 2020). VSC is led by specialist stone nurses for on-going surveillance of KSD patients. Results: A total of 290 patients were seen (468 individual appointments; 1.6 ± 1.0 per patient), with a mean age of 57.0 ± 15.8 years (range: 17-92) and a men-women ratio of 3:2. The referral was for surveillance of asymptomatic small renal stones (230, 79.3%); history of recurrent stone disease (45, 15.5%); solitary kidneys (5, 1.7%); cystine stones; young age; and other conditions (10, 3.4%). The mean stone size was 5.0 ± 2.7 mm, followed up with kidney, ureter, and bladder radiograph (225, 77.6%) and ultrasound scan (USS) (65, 22.4%), for median duration of 12 months (range: 3-24 months). At the end, 132 patients (45.6%) remained in VSC, 106 (36.6%) were discharged, 47 (16.2%) returned to face-to-face clinic or treatment, and 5 (1.7%) had emergency admissions. Of 47 patients who returned, 23 (48.9%) developed new symptoms, 21 (44.6%) had stone growth, and 3 defaulted to face-to-face appointment. Thirty-five patients needed surgical intervention (URS-21, SWL-13, and PCNL-1) and 10 were managed conservatively. VSC reduced the cost per clinic appointment from £27.9 to £2 per patient (93% reduction), equating to a total saving of £12,006 for the study period. Conclusion: Nurse-led VSC not only provided a safe follow-up but also allowed to substantially reduce the cost of treatment by allowing patients to be either discharged or return to a face-to-face clinic or surgical intervention if needed. Post-COVID, this model using telemedicine will have a much wider uptake and further help to optimize health care resources.

Comparison of ureteric stent removal procedures using reusable and single-use flexible cystoscopes following ureteroscopy and lasertripsy: a micro cost analysis.

INTRODUCTION: Diagnostic pressure on endoscopy suite can lead to delay in flexible cystoscopic stent removal. We compare the cost and organizational impact of reusable flexible cystoscope versus single-use, flexible cystoscope with a built-in stent grasper (Isiris®). MATERIAL AND METHODS: Data for the reusable cystoscopic stent removal performed in endoscopy room, group A (period 1) were compared to Isiris disposable stent removal performed in outpatient clinic, group B (period 2). We chose the same calendar months in successive years for these two different groups (9 months each). A micro cost analysis was performed evaluating the impact on costs, complications and organizational benefit. RESULTS: A total of 72 patients (37, group A; 35, group B) were included with no significant differences in age and gender ratio. The mean procedure time was 14.4 and 2.2 minutes, and the mean stent dwell time was 26.8 and 15.4 days in groups A and B respectively (p <0.001). In group A, 5 patients (14%) developed stent encrustation, of which 3 needed a ureteroscopic removal subsequently. No complication occurred in group B. More staff on average were needed for procedures done in group A, than group B (p <0.001).The number of patients who had cancer diagnostic wait of >2 weeks for flexible cystoscopy and the mean number of days they waited, reduced from 16 to 3, and 21 days to 3 days respectively between period 1 to period 2. The cost per procedure between group A and group B was £267.2 and £252.62 (p <0.05) if the cost of managing complications was not considered, and £365.40 and £252.62 (p <0.001) if the cost of managing complications was also considered. CONCLUSIONS: Isiris significantly reduced stent dwell time, procedural time and staff needed to carry out the stent removals. It also allowed the procedures to be done in the outpatient setting thereby reducing the organizational pressure on endoscopy related diagnostic procedures.

Cost comparison of single-use versus reusable flexible ureteroscope: A systematic review.

Single-use flexible ureteroscopes (su-fURS) aim at overcoming the main limitations of conventional reusable flexible ureteroscopes (re-fURS) in terms of acquisition and maintenance costs, breakages, and reprocessing. We aimed to perform a literature review on available re-fURS and su-fURS performances with a focus on costs. A search of Medline, EMBASE, CINAHL, and Scopus databases was performed to identify articles published in English within the last 10 years addressing refURS and su-fURS characteristics, clinical, and cost data. Relevant studies were then screened, and the data were extracted, analyzed, and summarized. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analysis criteria were applied. A narrative synthesis was performed. To date, few studies have properly investigated the issue of costs in ureteroscopy. An important local and international variation in costs exists for both re-fURS and su-fURS in terms of acquisition, maintenance, and repair costs. Reusable scopes have high acquisition and ancillary (e.g. repair, involved personnel) costs, which are not considered in a pure su-fURS activity. However, only recently su-fURS were shown to have a similar efficacy as compared with reusable devices. In high-volume centers, with proper training for reusable ureteroscopes management, the cost per case of reusable and single-use scopes are overlapping ($1,212-$1,743 versus $1,300-$3,180 per procedure). There is a partial overlap in the ranges of costs for single-use and reusable scopes, which makes it important to precisely know the caseload, repair bills, and added expenses when negotiating purchase prices, repair prices, and warranty conditions for scopes.

Evaluation of the economic burden of kidney stone disease in the UK: a retrospective cohort study with a mean follow-up of 19 years.

OBJECTIVE: To estimate the cost of kidney stone disease (KSD) in England. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We conducted a retrospective cohort study of patients with KSD, referred to a metabolic stone clinic between 1990 and 2007 using electronic records of patients with KSD in a tertiary referral centre, to determine cost using UK National Health Service (NHS) tariff, with subsequent extrapolation to the entire England population. Those with no documentation and <5 years follow-up were excluded. The outcome measure was calculation of cost (as per 2018 NHS tariff) presented as lower and higher estimates for: per episode; total within the cohort; and estimation of initial, 5-,10- and 15-year costs for the cohort and total population in England. Linear regression was used to examine for significant predictors of per episode and total cost. RESULTS: A total of 781 patients were included in the study after 1000 records were screened for inclusion, with a mean follow-up of 19 years. The mean (SD) overall costs per episode were between £1277 (1724) and £2887 (2492). Total initial costs for the cohort were between £950 842 and £2 336 442, rising to between £1.43 million and £3.02 million at 15 years of follow-up. Estimated cost in 2010 in England alone was between £190 million and £324 million. CONCLUSION: KSD is a costly disease, comparable to the combined cost of prostate and bladder cancer in UK.

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.

Flexible ureteroscopy: reuse? Or is single use the new direction?

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Single-use flexible ureteroscopes (su-fURS) aim at overcoming the main limitations of conventional reusable ureteroscopes in terms of acquisition and maintenance costs, breakages, and reprocessing. However, little data exist to date regarding the superiority of su-fURS at this regard. We aimed to perform a systematic literature review on available su-fURS performance with a focus on clinical data for all articles in the last 10 years. RECENT FINDINGS: To date, more than 10 different su-fURS are available on the market, with different characteristics and performance. Some of these devices have top-level features, almost catching up with those observed in reusable flexible ureteroscopes. Clinical evidence is mainly available only for two models, LithoVue and Uscope PU3022, and to date it is not strong enough to support routine adoption and use of su-fURS, with a consequent lack of consensus of specific clinical indications. Cost-effectiveness analyses seem to indicate an economic disadvantage in the routine adoption of su-fURS. Environmental issues related to the use of su-fURS also remain to be inquired and addressed. SUMMARY: Since their introduction, su-fURS have gained widespread popularity. Despite their ability at addressing reusable ureteroscope limitations, high-cost and a substantial lack of evidence are still limiting their routine adoption.

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.

Ureteroscopy is more cost effective than shock wave lithotripsy for stone treatment: systematic review and meta-analysis.

INTRODUCTION: A rising incidence of kidney stone disease has led to an increase in ureteroscopy (URS) and shock wave lithotripsy (SWL). Our aim was to compare the cost of URS and SWL for treatment of stones. METHODS: A systematic review and meta-analysis based on Cochrane and PRISMA standards was conducted for all studies reporting on comparative cost of treatment between URS and SWL. The cost calculation was based on factual data presented in the individual studies as reported by the authors. English language articles from January 2001 to December 2017 using Medline, PubMed, EMBASE, CINAHL, Cochrane library and Google Scholar were selected. Our study was registered with PROSPERO (International prospective register of systematic reviews)-registration number CRD 42017080350. RESULTS: A total of 12 studies involving 2012 patients (SWL-1243, URS-769) were included after initial identification and screening of 725 studies with further assessment of 27 papers. The mean stone size was 10 and 11 mm for SWL and URS, respectively, with stone location in the proximal ureter (n = 8 studies), distal ureter (n = 1), all locations in the ureter (n = 1) and in the kidney (n = 2). Stone free rates (84 vs. 60%) were favourable for URS compared to SWL (p < 0.001). Complication rates (23 vs. 30%) were non-significantly in favor of SWL (p = 0.11) whereas re-treatment rates (11 vs. 27%) were non-significantly in favor of URS (p = 0.29). Mean overall cost was significantly lower for URS ($2801) compared to SWL ($3627) (p = 0.03). The included studies had high risk of bias overall. On sub-analysis, URS was significantly cost-effective for both stones < 10 and ≥ 10 mm and for proximal ureteric stones. CONCLUSION: There is limited evidence to suggest that URS is less expensive than SWL. However, due to lack of standardization, studies seem to be contradictory and further randomized studies are needed to address this issue.

Development Methodology of the Novel Endoscopic Stone Treatment Step 1 Training/Assessment Curriculum: An International Collaborative Work by European Association of Urology Sections.

Background: Simulation-based technical skill assessment is a core topic of debate, especially in high-risk environments. After the introduction of the E-BLUS (European Basic Laparoscopic Urological Skills) exam for basic laparoscopy, no more technical training/assessment urological protocols have been developed in Europe. Objective: We describe the methodology used in the development of the novel Endoscopic Stone Treatment step 1 (EST s1) assessment curriculum. Materials and Methods: The "full life cycle curriculum development" template was followed for curriculum development. A cognitive task analysis was run to define the most important steps and details of retrograde intrarenal surgery, in accordance with European Association of Urology (EAU) Urolithiasis guidelines. Training tasks were created between April 2015 and September 2015. Tasks and metrics were further analyzed by a consensus meeting with the European Section of Urolithiasis (EULIS) board in February 2016. A review, aimed to study available simulators and their accordance with task requirements, was subsequently run in London in March 2016. After initial feedback and further tests, content validity of this protocol was achieved during European Urology Residents Education Programme (EUREP) 2016. Results: The EST s1 curriculum development, took 23 months. Seventy-two participants tested the five preliminary tasks during EUREP 2015, with sessions of 45 minutes each. Likert-scale questionnaires were filled out to score the quality of training. The protocol was modified accordingly and 25 participants tested the four tasks during the hands-on training sessions of the European Section of Uro-Technology (ESUT) 2016 congress. One hundred thirty-four participants finally participated in the validation study in EUREP 2016. During the same event, 10 experts confirmed content validity by filling out a Likert-scale questionnaire. Conclusion: We described a reliable and replicable methodology that can be followed to develop training/assessment protocols for surgical procedures. The expert consensus meetings, strict adherence to guidelines, and updated literature search toward an Endourology curriculum allowed correct training and assessment protocol development. It is the first step toward standardized simulation training in Endourology with a potential for worldwide adoption.

'Mini, ultra, micro' - nomenclature and cost of these new minimally invasive percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL) techniques.

New minimally invasive percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL) techniques have changed the management of renal stones. We discuss the technological advances in PCNL and explain the meaning, requirements and set up costs for each of these 'newer' techniques.

Decreasing the cost of flexible ureterorenoscopic procedures.

OBJECTIVE: To treat calculus disease, perform diagnostic procedures, for endoscopic management of upper tract tumours and in selected cases for laser guided endopyelotomy there is an increase in the use of Flexible Ureterorenoscopy (FURS). METHODS: We wanted to prospectively audit the cost of flexible ureterorenoscopic procedures undertaken in our department between March 2009 and March 2010. RESULTS: Based on our business model, the cost of diagnostic FURS is £131 (equivalent to €157 or $196.50), FURS and lasertripsy for stones is between £296 and £429 (€355-€515 or $444-$644), and that for endoscopic management of upper tract transitional cell carcinomas is between £148 and £225 (€178-€270 or $222-$338). CONCLUSION: Our model shows a cost-efficient way of performing FURS procedures. As the cost of FURS comes down, more trainees will build hands-on experience in these procedures.