Comparison of Surgical Outcomes between Single-Use and Reusable Flexible Ureteroscopes for Renal Stone Management: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
<i>Background and Objectives</i>: Disposable flexible ureteroscopes have been widely used because of their cost-effectiveness and higher sterility potential compared with reusable flexible ureteroscopes. This study aimed to compare the surgical outcomes and complication rates in patients...
| Main Authors: | , , , , , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
MDPI AG
2022-10-01
|
| Series: | Medicina |
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | https://www.mdpi.com/1648-9144/58/10/1388 |
| _version_ | 1797471632463233024 |
|---|---|
| author | Dae Young Jun Kang Su Cho Jae Yong Jeong Young Joon Moon Dong Hyuk Kang Hae Do Jung Joo Yong Lee |
| author_facet | Dae Young Jun Kang Su Cho Jae Yong Jeong Young Joon Moon Dong Hyuk Kang Hae Do Jung Joo Yong Lee |
| author_sort | Dae Young Jun |
| collection | DOAJ |
| description | <i>Background and Objectives</i>: Disposable flexible ureteroscopes have been widely used because of their cost-effectiveness and higher sterility potential compared with reusable flexible ureteroscopes. This study aimed to compare the surgical outcomes and complication rates in patients who undergo reusable or disposable flexible ureteroscopic stone surgeries (fURS) for urinary stone disease. <i>Materials and Methods</i>: A systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted under the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guideline. This systematic review was registered with PROSPERO (CRD42022331291). Clinical trials comparing reusable and disposable fURS for stone disease were found from PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, and the Web of Science up to March 2022. Participants were patients with upper urinary tract stones; the interventions were reusable or disposable fURS. Outcomes, including stone-free rate, operation time, length of hospital stay, and complication rate, were compared for analysis. <i>Results</i>: Overall, 111 studies were identified, but after removing duplicate studies, 75 studies remained. Thirty-two of these studies were excluded. Of the 43 screened studies, 11 met the eligibility criteria. There was no difference in the stone-free rate (SFR) between disposable and reusable fURS (<i>p</i> = 0.14; OR = 1.36; 95% CI, 0.9 to 2.04). For operation time, no difference was identified between reusable and disposable fURS groups (<i>p</i> = 0.12; MD = −5.31; 95% CI, −12.08 to 1.46). For hospital stay, there was also no difference between the two groups (<i>p</i> = 0.61; MD = −0.03; 95% CI, −0.17 to 0.10). There was no significant difference in complication rate between the two groups (<i>p</i> = 0.85; OR = 0.95; 95% CI, 0.56 to 1.61). <i>Conclusions</i>: There were no differences in the SFR, operation time, length of hospital stay, and complication rate between reusable and disposable fURS. Disposable fURS may be a comparable alternative to reusable fURS. |
| first_indexed | 2024-03-09T19:50:57Z |
| format | Article |
| id | doaj.art-1f78d3992e884924a3ccc2df5170739f |
| institution | Directory Open Access Journal |
| issn | 1010-660X 1648-9144 |
| language | English |
| last_indexed | 2024-03-09T19:50:57Z |
| publishDate | 2022-10-01 |
| publisher | MDPI AG |
| record_format | Article |
| series | Medicina |
| spelling | doaj.art-1f78d3992e884924a3ccc2df5170739f2023-11-24T01:10:16ZengMDPI AGMedicina1010-660X1648-91442022-10-015810138810.3390/medicina58101388Comparison of Surgical Outcomes between Single-Use and Reusable Flexible Ureteroscopes for Renal Stone Management: A Systematic Review and Meta-AnalysisDae Young Jun0Kang Su Cho1Jae Yong Jeong2Young Joon Moon3Dong Hyuk Kang4Hae Do Jung5Joo Yong Lee6Department of Urology, Severance Hospital, Urological Science Institute, Yonsei University College of Medicine, Seoul 03722, KoreaDepartment of Urology, Prostate Cancer Center, Gangnam Severance Hospital, Urological Science Institute, Yonsei University College of Medicine, Seoul 06273, KoreaDepartment of Urology, Severance Hospital, Urological Science Institute, Yonsei University College of Medicine, Seoul 03722, KoreaDepartment of Urology, Severance Hospital, Urological Science Institute, Yonsei University College of Medicine, Seoul 03722, KoreaDepartment of Urology, Inha University College of Medicine, Incheon 22212, KoreaDepartment of Urology, Inje University Ilsan Paik Hospital, Inje University College of Medicine, Goyang 10380, KoreaDepartment of Urology, Severance Hospital, Urological Science Institute, Yonsei University College of Medicine, Seoul 03722, Korea<i>Background and Objectives</i>: Disposable flexible ureteroscopes have been widely used because of their cost-effectiveness and higher sterility potential compared with reusable flexible ureteroscopes. This study aimed to compare the surgical outcomes and complication rates in patients who undergo reusable or disposable flexible ureteroscopic stone surgeries (fURS) for urinary stone disease. <i>Materials and Methods</i>: A systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted under the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guideline. This systematic review was registered with PROSPERO (CRD42022331291). Clinical trials comparing reusable and disposable fURS for stone disease were found from PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, and the Web of Science up to March 2022. Participants were patients with upper urinary tract stones; the interventions were reusable or disposable fURS. Outcomes, including stone-free rate, operation time, length of hospital stay, and complication rate, were compared for analysis. <i>Results</i>: Overall, 111 studies were identified, but after removing duplicate studies, 75 studies remained. Thirty-two of these studies were excluded. Of the 43 screened studies, 11 met the eligibility criteria. There was no difference in the stone-free rate (SFR) between disposable and reusable fURS (<i>p</i> = 0.14; OR = 1.36; 95% CI, 0.9 to 2.04). For operation time, no difference was identified between reusable and disposable fURS groups (<i>p</i> = 0.12; MD = −5.31; 95% CI, −12.08 to 1.46). For hospital stay, there was also no difference between the two groups (<i>p</i> = 0.61; MD = −0.03; 95% CI, −0.17 to 0.10). There was no significant difference in complication rate between the two groups (<i>p</i> = 0.85; OR = 0.95; 95% CI, 0.56 to 1.61). <i>Conclusions</i>: There were no differences in the SFR, operation time, length of hospital stay, and complication rate between reusable and disposable fURS. Disposable fURS may be a comparable alternative to reusable fURS.https://www.mdpi.com/1648-9144/58/10/1388disposable equipmentkidney calculimeta-analysissystematic reviewureteroscopes |
| spellingShingle | Dae Young Jun Kang Su Cho Jae Yong Jeong Young Joon Moon Dong Hyuk Kang Hae Do Jung Joo Yong Lee Comparison of Surgical Outcomes between Single-Use and Reusable Flexible Ureteroscopes for Renal Stone Management: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Medicina disposable equipment kidney calculi meta-analysis systematic review ureteroscopes |
| title | Comparison of Surgical Outcomes between Single-Use and Reusable Flexible Ureteroscopes for Renal Stone Management: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis |
| title_full | Comparison of Surgical Outcomes between Single-Use and Reusable Flexible Ureteroscopes for Renal Stone Management: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis |
| title_fullStr | Comparison of Surgical Outcomes between Single-Use and Reusable Flexible Ureteroscopes for Renal Stone Management: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis |
| title_full_unstemmed | Comparison of Surgical Outcomes between Single-Use and Reusable Flexible Ureteroscopes for Renal Stone Management: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis |
| title_short | Comparison of Surgical Outcomes between Single-Use and Reusable Flexible Ureteroscopes for Renal Stone Management: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis |
| title_sort | comparison of surgical outcomes between single use and reusable flexible ureteroscopes for renal stone management a systematic review and meta analysis |
| topic | disposable equipment kidney calculi meta-analysis systematic review ureteroscopes |
| url | https://www.mdpi.com/1648-9144/58/10/1388 |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT daeyoungjun comparisonofsurgicaloutcomesbetweensingleuseandreusableflexibleureteroscopesforrenalstonemanagementasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis AT kangsucho comparisonofsurgicaloutcomesbetweensingleuseandreusableflexibleureteroscopesforrenalstonemanagementasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis AT jaeyongjeong comparisonofsurgicaloutcomesbetweensingleuseandreusableflexibleureteroscopesforrenalstonemanagementasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis AT youngjoonmoon comparisonofsurgicaloutcomesbetweensingleuseandreusableflexibleureteroscopesforrenalstonemanagementasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis AT donghyukkang comparisonofsurgicaloutcomesbetweensingleuseandreusableflexibleureteroscopesforrenalstonemanagementasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis AT haedojung comparisonofsurgicaloutcomesbetweensingleuseandreusableflexibleureteroscopesforrenalstonemanagementasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis AT jooyonglee comparisonofsurgicaloutcomesbetweensingleuseandreusableflexibleureteroscopesforrenalstonemanagementasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis |