Comparative medico-economic study of reusable vs. single-use flexible ureteroscopes.

purposeReusable flexible-ureteroscopes (fURS) require personnel and budget for processing and repairing, whereas single-use fURS were recently developed. After exclusive reusable fURS since 2011, we experienced high repair costs and single-use fURS were therefore introduced in mid-2017. We aimed to evaluate economic and practical advantages and disadvantages of reusable versus single-use fURS. MATERIALS AND

methodsFirst, we evaluated the incidence of breakage and repairs of reusable fURS in 2017. We assessed the overall operational costs of reusable fURS including purchase, processing, and repairing in our institution from 2011 to 2017. Following our experience, we created a model to compare operation costs/procedure of single-use fURS with reusable fURS depending on repair costs.

resultsIn 2017, repair costs of reusable fURS increased by 345% compared with the period 2011-2016, causing: a median unavailability per reusable fURS of 200 days/year (100-249), median number of functioning fURS 0/5-3/5 per operating day, while unavailability of reusable fURS had become the first reason for cancellation of procedure. Since it was introduced, single-use fURS accounted for 59% of the flexible ureteroscopy activity. Taking into account the costs of processing, maintenance and repair, in 2011-2016 versus 2017, the single-use fURS was cost-effective compared with the reusable fURS until the 22nd procedure versus the 73rd procedure, respectively.

conclusionsAfter years of exclusive reusable fURS, the rising incidence of breakage not only increased maintenance costs but also hampered daily activity owing to unavailability of the devices. The introduction of single-use with reusable fURS provided substantial help to maintain our activity.