Cargando…

Repair Rate and Associated Costs of Reusable Flexible Ureteroscopes: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

CONTEXT: The refined mechanics of a flexible ureteroscope (fURS) are vulnerable to damage. Sending the fURS for repair is costly and has driven interest toward estimating the resources used for fURS repairs. OBJECTIVE: To systematically review available literature and to estimate the total weighted...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Rindorf, Dinah K., Tailly, Thomas, Kamphuis, Guido M., Larsen, Sara, Somani, Bhaskar K., Traxer, Olivier, Koo, Kevin
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Elsevier 2022
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8810356/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35128483
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.euros.2021.12.013
_version_ 1784644238132117504
author Rindorf, Dinah K.
Tailly, Thomas
Kamphuis, Guido M.
Larsen, Sara
Somani, Bhaskar K.
Traxer, Olivier
Koo, Kevin
author_facet Rindorf, Dinah K.
Tailly, Thomas
Kamphuis, Guido M.
Larsen, Sara
Somani, Bhaskar K.
Traxer, Olivier
Koo, Kevin
author_sort Rindorf, Dinah K.
collection PubMed
description CONTEXT: The refined mechanics of a flexible ureteroscope (fURS) are vulnerable to damage. Sending the fURS for repair is costly and has driven interest toward estimating the resources used for fURS repairs. OBJECTIVE: To systematically review available literature and to estimate the total weighted repair rate of an fURS and the average repair cost per ureteroscopy. EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: A systematic review was conducted by searching the MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library databases. The average costs of all repairs identified in the included studies were extracted. A random-effect model was used to calculate the pooled total fURS repair rate. The total weighted repair rate and average cost per repair were multiplied to provide an average cost of repair per ureteroscopy procedure. EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS: We identified 18 studies that fulfilled the inclusion criteria, which included 411 repairs from 5900 investigated ureteroscopy procedures. The calculated weighted repair rate was 6.5% ± 0.745% (95% confidence interval: 5.0–7.9%; I(2) = 75.3%), equivalent to 15 ureteroscopy procedures before repair. The average cost per repair was 6808 USD; according to the weighted repair rate of 6.5%, this corresponds to an average repair cost of 441 USD per procedure. Egger’s regression test did not reveal a significant publication bias (p = 0.07). CONCLUSIONS: This is the first meta-analysis to estimate the repair rate of the fURS used for ureteroscopy. Our analysis demonstrates a repair rate of 6.5%, equivalent to 15 ureteroscopy procedures between fURS repairs and a repair cost of 441 USD per procedure. Ureteroscopy practices should consider fURS breakage rates and repair costs to optimize the use of reusable versus disposable devices. PATIENT SUMMARY: We reviewed available literature investigating the repair rate of a flexible ureteroscope (fURS). We found that fURSs are sent for repair after every 15 ureteroscopy procedures, corresponding to 441 USD per procedure in repair cost.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-8810356
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2022
publisher Elsevier
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-88103562022-02-04 Repair Rate and Associated Costs of Reusable Flexible Ureteroscopes: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis Rindorf, Dinah K. Tailly, Thomas Kamphuis, Guido M. Larsen, Sara Somani, Bhaskar K. Traxer, Olivier Koo, Kevin Eur Urol Open Sci Review – Endo-urology CONTEXT: The refined mechanics of a flexible ureteroscope (fURS) are vulnerable to damage. Sending the fURS for repair is costly and has driven interest toward estimating the resources used for fURS repairs. OBJECTIVE: To systematically review available literature and to estimate the total weighted repair rate of an fURS and the average repair cost per ureteroscopy. EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: A systematic review was conducted by searching the MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library databases. The average costs of all repairs identified in the included studies were extracted. A random-effect model was used to calculate the pooled total fURS repair rate. The total weighted repair rate and average cost per repair were multiplied to provide an average cost of repair per ureteroscopy procedure. EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS: We identified 18 studies that fulfilled the inclusion criteria, which included 411 repairs from 5900 investigated ureteroscopy procedures. The calculated weighted repair rate was 6.5% ± 0.745% (95% confidence interval: 5.0–7.9%; I(2) = 75.3%), equivalent to 15 ureteroscopy procedures before repair. The average cost per repair was 6808 USD; according to the weighted repair rate of 6.5%, this corresponds to an average repair cost of 441 USD per procedure. Egger’s regression test did not reveal a significant publication bias (p = 0.07). CONCLUSIONS: This is the first meta-analysis to estimate the repair rate of the fURS used for ureteroscopy. Our analysis demonstrates a repair rate of 6.5%, equivalent to 15 ureteroscopy procedures between fURS repairs and a repair cost of 441 USD per procedure. Ureteroscopy practices should consider fURS breakage rates and repair costs to optimize the use of reusable versus disposable devices. PATIENT SUMMARY: We reviewed available literature investigating the repair rate of a flexible ureteroscope (fURS). We found that fURSs are sent for repair after every 15 ureteroscopy procedures, corresponding to 441 USD per procedure in repair cost. Elsevier 2022-01-29 /pmc/articles/PMC8810356/ /pubmed/35128483 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.euros.2021.12.013 Text en © 2022 The Author(s) https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/This is an open access article under the CC BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
spellingShingle Review – Endo-urology
Rindorf, Dinah K.
Tailly, Thomas
Kamphuis, Guido M.
Larsen, Sara
Somani, Bhaskar K.
Traxer, Olivier
Koo, Kevin
Repair Rate and Associated Costs of Reusable Flexible Ureteroscopes: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis
title Repair Rate and Associated Costs of Reusable Flexible Ureteroscopes: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis
title_full Repair Rate and Associated Costs of Reusable Flexible Ureteroscopes: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis
title_fullStr Repair Rate and Associated Costs of Reusable Flexible Ureteroscopes: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis
title_full_unstemmed Repair Rate and Associated Costs of Reusable Flexible Ureteroscopes: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis
title_short Repair Rate and Associated Costs of Reusable Flexible Ureteroscopes: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis
title_sort repair rate and associated costs of reusable flexible ureteroscopes: a systematic review and meta-analysis
topic Review – Endo-urology
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8810356/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35128483
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.euros.2021.12.013
work_keys_str_mv AT rindorfdinahk repairrateandassociatedcostsofreusableflexibleureteroscopesasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT taillythomas repairrateandassociatedcostsofreusableflexibleureteroscopesasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT kamphuisguidom repairrateandassociatedcostsofreusableflexibleureteroscopesasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT larsensara repairrateandassociatedcostsofreusableflexibleureteroscopesasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT somanibhaskark repairrateandassociatedcostsofreusableflexibleureteroscopesasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT traxerolivier repairrateandassociatedcostsofreusableflexibleureteroscopesasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT kookevin repairrateandassociatedcostsofreusableflexibleureteroscopesasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis