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...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Oderda, Marco, Asimakopoulos, Anastasios, Batetta, Valerio, Bosio, Andrea, Dalmasso, Ettore, Morra, Ivano, Vercelli, Eugenia, Gontero, Paolo
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