Single-Use Versus Reusable Digital Flexible Ureteroscopes for the Treatment of Renal Calculi: A Prospective...

To compare the efficacy and safety of a single-use digital flexible ureteroscope (f-URS) and a reusable digital f-URS (URF-V) for the treatment of renal stones in adults. In this randomized open-label noninferiority trial, we randomly selected patients with renal stones to receive ureteroscopy through a single-use digital f-URS (ZebraScope^™; Happiness Workshop, Beijing, China) or a URF-V (Olympus, Tokyo, Japan). The primary endpoint was the 1-month postsurgical stone-free rate (SFR). The secondary efficacy endpoints assessed were the high-quality rate of images, the eligible rate of operability, the operative time, and the length of hospital stay. The safety outcomes assessed were the presence of postoperative complications, adverse events (AEs), and serious AEs (SAEs). The noninferiority margin was set at -10%. In total, 126 patients completed the study (i.e., 63 patients in each group). The demographic and preoperative parameters were comparable between the two groups. The 1-month SFR was 77.78% for the ZebraScope group and 68.25% for the URF-V group (two-sided 95% confidence interval [CI]: -5.95 to 25.01). The high-quality rate of images and the eligible rate of operability were 100% in both groups (two-sided 95% CI: -5.27 to 5.35). There was no difference between the two groups in the operative time (p = 0.687), the length of hospital stay (p = 0.430), the presence of postoperative complications (p = 0.310), the presence of AEs (p = 0.709), and the presence of SAEs (p = 0.648). The most important and fatal SAE was acute urinary tract obstruction. The single-use digital f-URS (ZebraScope) appears to be at least noninferior to URF-V regarding the 1-month SFR, the high-quality rate of images, and the eligible rate of operability. Single-use digital f-URSs are an effective and safe alternative to URF-V.