Cargando…
Single-use digital flexible cystoscope for double J removal versus reusable instruments: a prospective, comparative study of functionality, risk of infection, and costs
BACKGROUND: The removal of ureteral stent can be performed with disposable or reusable flexible cystoscopes, but limited comparative data are available on functionality, risk of infections, and costs. METHODS: We performed a multicentric, prospective, observational study on patients undergoing in-of...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Springer Berlin Heidelberg
2023
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10632259/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37783843 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00345-023-04636-0 |
_version_ | 1785146125286637568 |
---|---|
author | Oderda, Marco Asimakopoulos, Anastasios Batetta, Valerio Bosio, Andrea Dalmasso, Ettore Morra, Ivano Vercelli, Eugenia Gontero, Paolo |
author_facet | Oderda, Marco Asimakopoulos, Anastasios Batetta, Valerio Bosio, Andrea Dalmasso, Ettore Morra, Ivano Vercelli, Eugenia Gontero, Paolo |
author_sort | Oderda, Marco |
collection | PubMed |
description | BACKGROUND: The removal of ureteral stent can be performed with disposable or reusable flexible cystoscopes, but limited comparative data are available on functionality, risk of infections, and costs. METHODS: We performed a multicentric, prospective, observational study on patients undergoing in-office ureteral stent removal with Isiris-α(®) or a reusable Storz™ flexible cystoscope. Study endpoints were the functionality and effectiveness of the devices, the rate of postoperative bacteriuria and UTIs, and the costs of the procedure. RESULTS: A total of 135 patients were included, 80 (59.2%) treated with reusable cystoscopes and 55 (40.8%) with Isiris-α(®). No significant baseline differences between groups were detected. Isiris-α(®) outperformed the reusable device in terms of quality of vision (p 0.001), manoeuvrability (p 0.001), grasper functionality (p < 0.001), and quality of the procedure (p 0.01). Mean procedure time was shorter with Isiris-α(®) (p < 0.001) due to a shorter instrument preparation time (p < 0.001). No differences were found in terms of perceived patient pain (p 0.34), nor postoperative bacteriuria or symptomatic UTIs. According to our cost analysis, the in-office procedure performed with Isiris-α(®) was more expensive (+ 137.8€) but was independent from instrument turnover or disinfection. Among limitations of study we acknowledge the lack of randomization, the use of antibiotic prophylaxis in several patients, and the high rate of missing preoperative urine cultures. CONCLUSIONS: Isiris-α(®) outperforms reusable cystoscopes for in-office ureteral stent removal in terms of total operative time and quality of the procedure, at the cost of being more expensive. No significant differences in postoperative bacteriuria or symptomatic UTIs were found. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s00345-023-04636-0. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-10632259 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2023 |
publisher | Springer Berlin Heidelberg |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-106322592023-11-14 Single-use digital flexible cystoscope for double J removal versus reusable instruments: a prospective, comparative study of functionality, risk of infection, and costs Oderda, Marco Asimakopoulos, Anastasios Batetta, Valerio Bosio, Andrea Dalmasso, Ettore Morra, Ivano Vercelli, Eugenia Gontero, Paolo World J Urol Original Article BACKGROUND: The removal of ureteral stent can be performed with disposable or reusable flexible cystoscopes, but limited comparative data are available on functionality, risk of infections, and costs. METHODS: We performed a multicentric, prospective, observational study on patients undergoing in-office ureteral stent removal with Isiris-α(®) or a reusable Storz™ flexible cystoscope. Study endpoints were the functionality and effectiveness of the devices, the rate of postoperative bacteriuria and UTIs, and the costs of the procedure. RESULTS: A total of 135 patients were included, 80 (59.2%) treated with reusable cystoscopes and 55 (40.8%) with Isiris-α(®). No significant baseline differences between groups were detected. Isiris-α(®) outperformed the reusable device in terms of quality of vision (p 0.001), manoeuvrability (p 0.001), grasper functionality (p < 0.001), and quality of the procedure (p 0.01). Mean procedure time was shorter with Isiris-α(®) (p < 0.001) due to a shorter instrument preparation time (p < 0.001). No differences were found in terms of perceived patient pain (p 0.34), nor postoperative bacteriuria or symptomatic UTIs. According to our cost analysis, the in-office procedure performed with Isiris-α(®) was more expensive (+ 137.8€) but was independent from instrument turnover or disinfection. Among limitations of study we acknowledge the lack of randomization, the use of antibiotic prophylaxis in several patients, and the high rate of missing preoperative urine cultures. CONCLUSIONS: Isiris-α(®) outperforms reusable cystoscopes for in-office ureteral stent removal in terms of total operative time and quality of the procedure, at the cost of being more expensive. No significant differences in postoperative bacteriuria or symptomatic UTIs were found. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s00345-023-04636-0. Springer Berlin Heidelberg 2023-10-02 2023 /pmc/articles/PMC10632259/ /pubmed/37783843 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00345-023-04636-0 Text en © The Author(s) 2023 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) . |
spellingShingle | Original Article Oderda, Marco Asimakopoulos, Anastasios Batetta, Valerio Bosio, Andrea Dalmasso, Ettore Morra, Ivano Vercelli, Eugenia Gontero, Paolo Single-use digital flexible cystoscope for double J removal versus reusable instruments: a prospective, comparative study of functionality, risk of infection, and costs |
title | Single-use digital flexible cystoscope for double J removal versus reusable instruments: a prospective, comparative study of functionality, risk of infection, and costs |
title_full | Single-use digital flexible cystoscope for double J removal versus reusable instruments: a prospective, comparative study of functionality, risk of infection, and costs |
title_fullStr | Single-use digital flexible cystoscope for double J removal versus reusable instruments: a prospective, comparative study of functionality, risk of infection, and costs |
title_full_unstemmed | Single-use digital flexible cystoscope for double J removal versus reusable instruments: a prospective, comparative study of functionality, risk of infection, and costs |
title_short | Single-use digital flexible cystoscope for double J removal versus reusable instruments: a prospective, comparative study of functionality, risk of infection, and costs |
title_sort | single-use digital flexible cystoscope for double j removal versus reusable instruments: a prospective, comparative study of functionality, risk of infection, and costs |
topic | Original Article |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10632259/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37783843 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00345-023-04636-0 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT oderdamarco singleusedigitalflexiblecystoscopefordoublejremovalversusreusableinstrumentsaprospectivecomparativestudyoffunctionalityriskofinfectionandcosts AT asimakopoulosanastasios singleusedigitalflexiblecystoscopefordoublejremovalversusreusableinstrumentsaprospectivecomparativestudyoffunctionalityriskofinfectionandcosts AT batettavalerio singleusedigitalflexiblecystoscopefordoublejremovalversusreusableinstrumentsaprospectivecomparativestudyoffunctionalityriskofinfectionandcosts AT bosioandrea singleusedigitalflexiblecystoscopefordoublejremovalversusreusableinstrumentsaprospectivecomparativestudyoffunctionalityriskofinfectionandcosts AT dalmassoettore singleusedigitalflexiblecystoscopefordoublejremovalversusreusableinstrumentsaprospectivecomparativestudyoffunctionalityriskofinfectionandcosts AT morraivano singleusedigitalflexiblecystoscopefordoublejremovalversusreusableinstrumentsaprospectivecomparativestudyoffunctionalityriskofinfectionandcosts AT vercellieugenia singleusedigitalflexiblecystoscopefordoublejremovalversusreusableinstrumentsaprospectivecomparativestudyoffunctionalityriskofinfectionandcosts AT gonteropaolo singleusedigitalflexiblecystoscopefordoublejremovalversusreusableinstrumentsaprospectivecomparativestudyoffunctionalityriskofinfectionandcosts |