Intrarenal pressure and flow rate profile using LithoVue™ elite: impact of different irrigation systems and working channel instruments.

PURPOSE: To report real-time IRP and FR while performing flexible ureteroscopy in porcine kidney model utilizing LithoVue™ Elite (Boston Scientific®) with different irrigation systems, including automated pumps. METHODS: Using an ex-vivo model of porcine kidney, IRPs were measured with LithoVue Elite. Ureteroscopic settings (US) were tested with all permutations of irrigation methods (IM), working channel occupant (WCO), and ureteral access sheaths (UAS). IMs included: Single Action Pumping System (SAPS™, Boston Scientific), Thermedx FluidSmart™ (Stryker®), and ENDOMAT™ (Karl Storz®). Pumps were tested at 50, 100, and 150 mmHg. WCOs included a 1.9Fr zero-tip basket, 200 µm, and 365 µm laser fibers. UASs utilized 11/13Fr and 12/14Fr 36 cm. RESULTS: 84 different US were tested (252 experiments). ENDOMAT had higher IRP but the same FR as Thermedx at the same US for 50 and 100 mmHg (p < 0.01). SAPS had higher IRP and FR than pumps in all US studies (p < 0.01). There was positive correlation between pressure set by the pump and both IRP and FR (rho > 0.9). As the diameter of the WCO increased, lower IRP and FR were observed with the pumps (p < 0.01). With SAPS, IRP was similar regardless of WCO, but FR was decreased with the increased diameter of WCO (p = 0.81 and p < 0.01, respectively). There was significantly higher IRP when using 11/13Fr UAS than 12/14Fr (p < 0.01). CONCLUSION: IRP was higher with SAPS than automated pumps. ENDOMAT showed higher IRP than Thermedx when under 150 mmHg. IRP and FR increase with higher pump pressure and decrease with larger diameter WCO. Likewise, a larger UAS significantly reduced IRP.

Comparative medico-economic study of reusable vs. single-use flexible ureteroscopes.

PURPOSE: Reusable flexible-ureteroscopes (fURS) require personnel and budget for processing and repairing, whereas single-use fURS were recently developed. After exclusive reusable fURS since 2011, we experienced high repair costs and single-use fURS were therefore introduced in mid-2017. We aimed to evaluate economic and practical advantages and disadvantages of reusable versus single-use fURS. MATERIALS AND METHODS: First, we evaluated the incidence of breakage and repairs of reusable fURS in 2017. We assessed the overall operational costs of reusable fURS including purchase, processing, and repairing in our institution from 2011 to 2017. Following our experience, we created a model to compare operation costs/procedure of single-use fURS with reusable fURS depending on repair costs. RESULTS: In 2017, repair costs of reusable fURS increased by 345% compared with the period 2011-2016, causing: a median unavailability per reusable fURS of 200 days/year (100-249), median number of functioning fURS 0/5-3/5 per operating day, while unavailability of reusable fURS had become the first reason for cancellation of procedure. Since it was introduced, single-use fURS accounted for 59% of the flexible ureteroscopy activity. Taking into account the costs of processing, maintenance and repair, in 2011-2016 versus 2017, the single-use fURS was cost-effective compared with the reusable fURS until the 22nd procedure versus the 73rd procedure, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: After years of exclusive reusable fURS, the rising incidence of breakage not only increased maintenance costs but also hampered daily activity owing to unavailability of the devices. The introduction of single-use with reusable fURS provided substantial help to maintain our activity.

Single-Use Flexible Ureteroscopes: How Do They Compare with Reusable Ureteroscopes?

Flexible ureteroscopy has become an important tool in the urologist's armamentarium. Until recently, reusable ureteroscopes were the only tools available to perform ureteroscopy. However, in recent years, single-use flexible and semirigid ureteroscopes have been developed as an alternative to reusable ureteroscopes. These disposable ureteroscopes were designed to mitigate problems associated with the use of reusable ureteroscopes, including the high costs related to ureteroscope acquisition, maintenance, processing, sterilization, and repairs. In this review, we provide an overview of currently available single-use flexible ureteroscopes, which include LithoVue, Uscope, NeoFlex, and Shaogang, as well as the Neoscope semirigid ureteroscope. The functional capabilities (deflection, irrigation, and optical properties) of each ureteroscope are also discussed.