Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Comparing outcomes of single-use vs reusable ureteroscopes: a systematic review and meta analysis.
Belkovsky, Mikhael; Passerotti, Carlo Camargo; Maia, Ronaldo Soares; de Almeida Artifon, Everson Luiz; Otoch, José Pinhata; Da Cruz, Jose Arnaldo Shiomi.
Afiliación
  • Belkovsky M; Surgical Technique & Experimental Surgery Department, Universidade de São Paulo, São Paulo, Brazil.
  • Passerotti CC; Urology Department, Hospital Alemão Oswaldo Cruz, São Paulo, Brazil.
  • Maia RS; Surgical Technique & Experimental Surgery Department, Universidade de São Paulo, São Paulo, Brazil.
  • de Almeida Artifon EL; Surgical Technique & Experimental Surgery Department, Universidade de São Paulo, São Paulo, Brazil.
  • Otoch JP; Surgical Technique & Experimental Surgery Department, Universidade de São Paulo, São Paulo, Brazil.
  • Da Cruz JAS; Surgical Technique & Experimental Surgery Department, Universidade de São Paulo, São Paulo, Brazil. arnaldoshiomi@yahoo.com.br.
Urolithiasis ; 52(1): 37, 2024 Feb 28.
Article en En | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-38413490
ABSTRACT
Flexible ureterolithotripsy is a frequent urological procedure, usually used to remove stones from the kidney and upper ureter. Reusable uretero-scopes were the standard tool for that procedure, but recent concerns related to sterility and maintenance and repair costs created the opportunity to develop new technologies. In 2016, the first single-use digital flexible ureteroscope was introduced. Since then, other single-use ureteroscopes were developed, and studies compared them with the reusable ureteroscopes with conflicting results. The purpose of this study is to describe the literature that compares the performance of single-use and reusable flexible ureteroscopes in retrograde intrarenal surgery for urinary stones. A Systematic Review was performed in October 2022 in accordance with the Cochrane Handbook and the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and MetaAnalyses (PRISMA). A search in MEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of Science, Google Scholar and LILACS retrieved 10,039 articles. After screening, 12 articles were selected for the Meta-Analysis. No differences were found in stone-free rate (OR 1.31, CI 95% [0.88, 1.97]), operative time (MD 0.12, CI 95% [-5.52, 5.76]), incidence of post-operative fever (OR 0.64, CI 95% [0.22, 1.89]), or incidence of post-operative urinary tract infection (OR 0.63 CI 95% [0.30, 1.32]). No differences were observed in the studied variables. Hence, the device choice should rely on the availability, cost analysis and surgeons' preference.
Asunto(s)
Palabras clave

Texto completo: 1 Colección: 01-internacional Banco de datos: MEDLINE Asunto principal: Cálculos Urinarios / Equipo Reutilizado / Ureteroscopios / Urolitiasis Límite: Humans Idioma: En Revista: Urolithiasis Año: 2024 Tipo del documento: Article País de afiliación: Brasil

Texto completo: 1 Colección: 01-internacional Banco de datos: MEDLINE Asunto principal: Cálculos Urinarios / Equipo Reutilizado / Ureteroscopios / Urolitiasis Límite: Humans Idioma: En Revista: Urolithiasis Año: 2024 Tipo del documento: Article País de afiliación: Brasil