Comparison of Flexible Ureteroscope Performance between Reusable and Single-Use Models

Area of Science:

• Urology
• Medical Devices
• Surgical Technology

Background:

• Flexible ureteroscopes are crucial for treating urinary retention.
• Reusable ureteroscopes pose risks of cross-infection and have limitations.
• Single-use flexible ureteroscopes (fURS) have emerged as a safer alternative.

Purpose of the Study:

• To evaluate and contrast the performance of recent reusable and single-use flexible ureteroscopes.
• To compare image quality, maneuverability, irrigation flow, and deflection capabilities.
• To assess the clinical utility of single-use fURS against traditional reusable models.

Main Methods:

• Comparative study of two digital reusable (Olympus URF-V, URF-V2) and one single-use (Pusen Medi-calUscope UE3022) flexible ureteroscopes.
• Ex vivo analysis of instrument influence on irrigation flow and deflection.
• In vivo evaluation across 80 patients undergoing retrograde fURS procedures.

Main Results:

• No statistically significant difference in image quality between reusable and single-use fURS cameras.
• Maneuverability scores were comparable for single-use and URF-V2, but lower for URF-V.
• Single-use fURS demonstrated over 50% greater effectiveness in irrigation flow compared to reusable scopes.

Conclusions:

• Single-use and reusable flexible ureteroscopes exhibit comparable visibility and maneuverability.
• Single-use flexible ureteroscopes offer superior irrigation flow and deflection capabilities.
• Single-use fURS present a promising alternative for urinary retention treatment, potentially improving patient outcomes and safety.