Single-use flexible ureteroscopes: practice patterns, attitudes, and preferences for next-generation concepts

被引:0
|
作者
Salka, Bassel [1 ]
Bahaee, Jamsheed [2 ]
DiBianco, John Michael [3 ]
Plott, Jeff [4 ]
Ghani, Khurshid R. [5 ]
机构
[1] Univ Michigan, Med Sch, Ann Arbor, MI 48109 USA
[2] Cleveland Clin Akron, Gen Urol & Pelv Hlth Ctr, Akron, OH USA
[3] Univ Florida, Dept Urol, Gainesville, FL USA
[4] Univ Michigan, Dept Biomed Engn, Coulter Program, Ann Arbor, MI USA
[5] Univ Michigan, Dept Urol, Ann Arbor, MI USA
来源
FRONTIERS IN SURGERY | 2024年 / 11卷
关键词
single use; ureteroscopy; urolithiasis; technology; survey; DURABILITY;
D O I
10.3389/fsurg.2024.1419682
中图分类号
R61 [外科手术学];
学科分类号
摘要
Background: Single use flexible ureteroscopes (su-fURS) have emerged as an alternative to reusable flexible ureteroscopes (r-fURS) for the management of upper urinary tract calculi. However, little is known about urologist usage and attitudes about this technology. Through a worldwide survey of endourologists, we assessed practice patterns and preferences for su-fURS. Methods: An online questionnaire was sent to Endourology Society members in January 2021. The survey explored current su-fURS practice patterns, reasons for/against adoption, and preferences for next generation models including developments in imaging, intra-renal pressure, heat generation, and suction. Responses were collected through QualtricsXM over a 1-month period from surgeons in North America, Latin America, Europe, Asia, Africa, and Oceania. The study was conducted according to the Checklist for Reporting Results of Internet E-Surveys (CHERRIES). Results: 208 (13.9%) members responded to the survey. Most respondents (53.8%) performed >100 ureteroscopies per year. 77.9% of all respondents used su-fURS for less than half of all procedures while only 2.4% used su-fURS for every procedure. 26.0% had never used a su-fURS. Overall, usage was not influenced by a surgeon's geographic region, practice environment, or years of experience. Top reasons for not adopting su-fURS were cost (59.1%) and environmental impact (12.5%). The most desired improvements in design were smaller outer shaft size (19.4%), improved optics and vision (15.9%), and wireless connectivity (13.6%). For next generation concepts, the functions most commonly described as essential or important by respondents was the ability to suction fragments (94.3%) while the function most commonly noted as not important or unnecessary was incorporation of a temperature sensor (40.4%). Conclusions: su-fURS are not commonly used, even among urologists who perform a high number of fURS. The primary concern for adoption is cost and environmental impact. Suction capability was considered the most important future development.
引用
收藏
页数:6
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [31] An eight year analysis of reusable flexible ureteroscopy and consideration of cost effectiveness modelled on single-use flexible ureteroscopes over the same period
    Tempo, J.
    Catterwell, R.
    BJU INTERNATIONAL, 2019, 123 : 6 - 6
  • [32] Single-Use Versus Reusable Digital Flexible Ureteroscopes for the Treatment of Renal Calculi: A Prospective Multicenter Randomized Controlled Trial
    Qi, Shiyong
    Yang, Enguang
    Bao, Junsheng
    Yang, Ningqiang
    Guo, Hongfeng
    Wang, Gang
    Li, Ningchen
    Cui, Xin
    Gao, Wei
    Ou, Tongwen
    Wang, Jiaji
    Wang, Zhiping
    Niu, Yuanjie
    JOURNAL OF ENDOUROLOGY, 2020, 34 (01) : 18 - 24
  • [33] Rapid Somatic Mutation Testing in Colorectal Cancer by Use of a Fully Automated System and Single-Use Cartridge: A Comparison with Next-Generation Sequencing
    Al-Turkmani, M. Rabie
    Godwin, Kelley N.
    Peterson, Jason D.
    Tsongalis, Gregory J.
    JOURNAL OF APPLIED LABORATORY MEDICINE, 2018, 3 (02): : 178 - 184
  • [34] Next-generation sequencing in clinical practice: from the patients' preferences to the informed consent process
    Pelissier, A.
    Peyron, C.
    Bejean, S.
    PUBLIC HEALTH, 2016, 138 : 157 - 159
  • [35] A RANDOMIZED, COST-EFFECTIVENESS STUDY OF NEW-GENERATION DIGITAL REUSABLE VS. SINGLE-USE FLEXIBLE URETEROSCOPES FOR ENDOSCOPIC COMBINED INTRARENAL SURGERY
    Taguchi, Kazumi
    Hamamoto, Shuzo
    Yanase, Takahiro
    Chaya, Ryosuke
    Kawase, Kengo
    Sugino, Teruaki
    Unno, Rei
    Takakura, Yohei
    Tajima, Shiori
    Okada, Atsushi
    Yasui, Takahiro
    JOURNAL OF UROLOGY, 2024, 211 (05): : E188 - E189
  • [36] A Prospective Case-Control Study Comparing LithoVue, a Single-Use, Flexible Disposable Ureteroscope, with Flexible, Reusable Fiber-Optic Ureteroscopes
    Usawachintachit, Manint
    Isaacson, Dylan S.
    Taguchi, Kazumi
    Tzou, David T.
    Hsi, Ryan S.
    Sherer, Benjamin A.
    Stoller, Marshall L.
    Chi, Thomas
    JOURNAL OF ENDOUROLOGY, 2017, 31 (05): : 468 - 475
  • [37] Single-Use Flexible Ureteroscopes: How Difficult Is It Today to Stay Up to Date? A Pictorial Review of Instruments Available in Europe in 2023
    Vaccaro, Chiara
    Lorusso, Vito
    Palmisano, Franco
    Rosso, Marco
    Nicola, Massimiliano
    Granata, Antonio Maria
    Gregori, Andrea
    Talso, Michele
    JOURNAL OF CLINICAL MEDICINE, 2023, 12 (24)
  • [38] Switching to Single-use Flexible Ureteroscopes for Stones Management: Financial Impact and Solutions to Reduce the Cost Over a 5-Year Period
    Dubnitskiy-Robin, Sophie
    Pradere, Benjamin
    d'Arcier, Benjamin Faivre
    Watt, Sophie
    Fol, Tanguy Le
    Bruyere, Franck
    Rusch, Emmanuel
    Monmousseau, Fanny
    Brunet-Houdard, Solene
    UROLOGY, 2020, 143 : 68 - 74
  • [39] Comparison of Surgical Outcomes between Single-Use and Reusable Flexible Ureteroscopes for Renal Stone Management: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
    Jun, Dae Young
    Cho, Kang Su
    Jeong, Jae Yong
    Moon, Young Joon
    Kang, Dong Hyuk
    Jung, Hae Do
    Lee, Joo Yong
    MEDICINA-LITHUANIA, 2022, 58 (10):
  • [40] Interface nanopores as a flexible technology for next-generation single-molecule protein sensing
    Schlotter, Til
    Kloter, Tom
    Nakatsuka, Nako
    Aramesh, Morteza
    Voros, Janos
    Zambelli, Tomaso
    BIOPHYSICAL JOURNAL, 2022, 121 (03) : 541A - 541A