Cargando…

Comparison of single-use and reusable flexible ureteroscope for renal stone management: a pooled analysis of 772 patients

Flexible ureteroscopy is a common therapy for patients with renal calculi. In recent years, the prevalence of single-use flexible ureteroscope (FURS) use has been on the rise. Thus, several trials have been conducted to compare the efficacy between single-use and reusable FURS. The aim of this meta-...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Li, Yongchao, Chen, Jinbo, Zhu, Zewu, Zeng, Huimin, Zeng, Feng, Chen, Zhiyong, Yang, Zhongqing, Cui, Yu, Chen, Hequn, Li, Yang
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: AME Publishing Company 2021
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7844498/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33532336
http://dx.doi.org/10.21037/tau-20-1009
_version_ 1783644357832736768
author Li, Yongchao
Chen, Jinbo
Zhu, Zewu
Zeng, Huimin
Zeng, Feng
Chen, Zhiyong
Yang, Zhongqing
Cui, Yu
Chen, Hequn
Li, Yang
author_facet Li, Yongchao
Chen, Jinbo
Zhu, Zewu
Zeng, Huimin
Zeng, Feng
Chen, Zhiyong
Yang, Zhongqing
Cui, Yu
Chen, Hequn
Li, Yang
author_sort Li, Yongchao
collection PubMed
description Flexible ureteroscopy is a common therapy for patients with renal calculi. In recent years, the prevalence of single-use flexible ureteroscope (FURS) use has been on the rise. Thus, several trials have been conducted to compare the efficacy between single-use and reusable FURS. The aim of this meta-analysis was to systematically assess the effectiveness and safety of single-use vs. reusable FURS in treating renal stones. PubMed, Web of Science, Cochrane Library and EMBASE were researched to identify relevant studies up to September 2019. Article selection was performed through the search strategy based on Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses criteria. The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale was applied to assess the methodological quality of non-randomized controlled trials, and the methodological quality of randomized controlled trials was evaluated using the Jadad scale. A total of five studies with 772 patients were included in the meta-analysis, including two randomized controlled trials, two single-centre prospective studies, and one prospective case-control trial. The pooled results showed that single-use FURS was associated with a higher stone-free rate (SFR) (OR: 1.50; 95% CI, 1.06–2.12; P=0.02) than reusable FURS. A significant difference was noted in operative time, and single-use FURS was associated with a longer operative duration (MD: 7.39 min; 95% CI, 1.75–13.03; P=0.01). No significant difference was noted in perioperative complications (OR: 0.97; 95% CI, 0.56–1.70; P=0.92). Subgroup analysis showed no significant difference in urinary tract infection (OR: 0.80; 95% CI, 0.44–1.46; P=0.46), stent migration (OR: 0.56; 95% CI, 0.19–1.65; P=0.30) or acute kidney injury (OR: 0.76; 95% CI, 0.16–3.57; P=0.73). Single-use FURS is an effective and safe alternative to reusable FURS for the management of renal stones.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-7844498
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2021
publisher AME Publishing Company
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-78444982021-02-01 Comparison of single-use and reusable flexible ureteroscope for renal stone management: a pooled analysis of 772 patients Li, Yongchao Chen, Jinbo Zhu, Zewu Zeng, Huimin Zeng, Feng Chen, Zhiyong Yang, Zhongqing Cui, Yu Chen, Hequn Li, Yang Transl Androl Urol Review Article Flexible ureteroscopy is a common therapy for patients with renal calculi. In recent years, the prevalence of single-use flexible ureteroscope (FURS) use has been on the rise. Thus, several trials have been conducted to compare the efficacy between single-use and reusable FURS. The aim of this meta-analysis was to systematically assess the effectiveness and safety of single-use vs. reusable FURS in treating renal stones. PubMed, Web of Science, Cochrane Library and EMBASE were researched to identify relevant studies up to September 2019. Article selection was performed through the search strategy based on Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses criteria. The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale was applied to assess the methodological quality of non-randomized controlled trials, and the methodological quality of randomized controlled trials was evaluated using the Jadad scale. A total of five studies with 772 patients were included in the meta-analysis, including two randomized controlled trials, two single-centre prospective studies, and one prospective case-control trial. The pooled results showed that single-use FURS was associated with a higher stone-free rate (SFR) (OR: 1.50; 95% CI, 1.06–2.12; P=0.02) than reusable FURS. A significant difference was noted in operative time, and single-use FURS was associated with a longer operative duration (MD: 7.39 min; 95% CI, 1.75–13.03; P=0.01). No significant difference was noted in perioperative complications (OR: 0.97; 95% CI, 0.56–1.70; P=0.92). Subgroup analysis showed no significant difference in urinary tract infection (OR: 0.80; 95% CI, 0.44–1.46; P=0.46), stent migration (OR: 0.56; 95% CI, 0.19–1.65; P=0.30) or acute kidney injury (OR: 0.76; 95% CI, 0.16–3.57; P=0.73). Single-use FURS is an effective and safe alternative to reusable FURS for the management of renal stones. AME Publishing Company 2021-01 /pmc/articles/PMC7844498/ /pubmed/33532336 http://dx.doi.org/10.21037/tau-20-1009 Text en 2021 Translational Andrology and Urology. All rights reserved. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/Open Access Statement: This is an Open Access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 4.0 International License (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0), which permits the non-commercial replication and distribution of the article with the strict proviso that no changes or edits are made and the original work is properly cited (including links to both the formal publication through the relevant DOI and the license). See: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0 (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/) .
spellingShingle Review Article
Li, Yongchao
Chen, Jinbo
Zhu, Zewu
Zeng, Huimin
Zeng, Feng
Chen, Zhiyong
Yang, Zhongqing
Cui, Yu
Chen, Hequn
Li, Yang
Comparison of single-use and reusable flexible ureteroscope for renal stone management: a pooled analysis of 772 patients
title Comparison of single-use and reusable flexible ureteroscope for renal stone management: a pooled analysis of 772 patients
title_full Comparison of single-use and reusable flexible ureteroscope for renal stone management: a pooled analysis of 772 patients
title_fullStr Comparison of single-use and reusable flexible ureteroscope for renal stone management: a pooled analysis of 772 patients
title_full_unstemmed Comparison of single-use and reusable flexible ureteroscope for renal stone management: a pooled analysis of 772 patients
title_short Comparison of single-use and reusable flexible ureteroscope for renal stone management: a pooled analysis of 772 patients
title_sort comparison of single-use and reusable flexible ureteroscope for renal stone management: a pooled analysis of 772 patients
topic Review Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7844498/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33532336
http://dx.doi.org/10.21037/tau-20-1009
work_keys_str_mv AT liyongchao comparisonofsingleuseandreusableflexibleureteroscopeforrenalstonemanagementapooledanalysisof772patients
AT chenjinbo comparisonofsingleuseandreusableflexibleureteroscopeforrenalstonemanagementapooledanalysisof772patients
AT zhuzewu comparisonofsingleuseandreusableflexibleureteroscopeforrenalstonemanagementapooledanalysisof772patients
AT zenghuimin comparisonofsingleuseandreusableflexibleureteroscopeforrenalstonemanagementapooledanalysisof772patients
AT zengfeng comparisonofsingleuseandreusableflexibleureteroscopeforrenalstonemanagementapooledanalysisof772patients
AT chenzhiyong comparisonofsingleuseandreusableflexibleureteroscopeforrenalstonemanagementapooledanalysisof772patients
AT yangzhongqing comparisonofsingleuseandreusableflexibleureteroscopeforrenalstonemanagementapooledanalysisof772patients
AT cuiyu comparisonofsingleuseandreusableflexibleureteroscopeforrenalstonemanagementapooledanalysisof772patients
AT chenhequn comparisonofsingleuseandreusableflexibleureteroscopeforrenalstonemanagementapooledanalysisof772patients
AT liyang comparisonofsingleuseandreusableflexibleureteroscopeforrenalstonemanagementapooledanalysisof772patients