Trial reportResearch and reports in urology2021
Disposable versus Reusable Ureteroscopes: A Prospective Multicenter Randomized Comparison.
Trial report in Research and reports in urology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
13 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 19 citations in OpenAlex.
- Single-useJournal of medicine and life · 2023Pooled it
- Use of artificial intelligence for sepsis risk prediction after flexible ureteroscopy: a systematic review.Revista do Colegio Brasileiro de Cirurgioes · 2023Pooled it
- Retrograde intrarenal surgery versus percutaneous nephrolithotomy for treatment of renal pelvic stone more than 2 centimeters: a prospective randomized controlled trial.Urolithiasis · 2022Trial
- The comparison of efficacy and safety of reusable and disposable-flexible ureteroscopes: case-control matching results of multicentric RIRSearch study group.International urology and nephrology · 2025Article
- Green endoscopy: Economic and ecological evaluation of single-use versus reusable ureterorenoscopes.BJUI compass · 2025Article
- Does age impact outcomes of retrograde intrarenal surgery in the elderly? Results from 366 patients from the FLEXible ureteroscopy outcomes registry (FLEXOR).Aging clinical and experimental research · 2023Article
- Ureterolithiasis in Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV) Patients Treated with Single-Use Ureteroscope: A Case Report.The American journal of case reports · 2022Article
- Hybrid flexible ureteroscopy strategy in the management of renal stones - a narrative review.Journal of medicine and life · 2022Review
- An in vitro Comparative Assessment of Single-Use Flexible Ureteroscopes Using a Standardized Ureteroscopy Training Model.Urologia internationalis · 2022Article
- Comparison of the efficacy and safety of flexible vacuum-assisted ureteral access sheath-assisted flexible ureteroscopic lithotripsy, conventional ureteral access sheath-assisted flexible ureteroscopic lithotripsy, and mini-percutaneous nephrolithotomy for 2-3 cm renal stones.Therapeutic advances in urologyArticle
- RIRS with disposable or reusable scopes: does it make a difference? Results from the multicenter FLEXOR study.Therapeutic advances in urologyArticle
- Editorial Comment.Indian journal of urology : IJU : journal of the Urological Society of IndiaArticle
- The reused-disposable scope in flexible ureteroscopy for stones as a cost-conscious approach: Reporting the outcomes of a real-world practice multicenter study of 2183 patients by the team of worldwide endourological researchers group.Indian journal of urology : IJU : journal of the Urological Society of IndiaArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors at 7 institutions in 5 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo compare reusable and disposable flexible ureteroscopes in terms of efficacy and safety for patients undergoing Retrograde Intrarenal Surgery (RIRS). PATIENTS AND
methodsPatients with a renal stone eligible for RIRS were enrolled in this multicenter, randomized, clinical trial study. Patients were randomized into two groups: group A (90 patients) underwent RIRS with a reusable flexible ureteroscope and group B (90 patients) were treated with a disposable one.
resultsThe patients' demographics, stone features and pre-operative urine cultures were comparable between the groups. The Stone Free Rates (SFRs) were not significantly different (86.6% and 90.0% for group A and group B, respectively, p=0.11) and the mean cost for each procedure was comparable (2321 € in group A vs 2543 € in group B, p=0.09). However, the days of hospitalization and of antibiotic therapy were higher in group A (p ≤ 0.05). The overall complication rate in group A was 8.8% whilst in group B it was 3.3% (p ≤ 0.05); in particular, group A exhibited a greater number of major complications (Clavien score IIIa-V). The overall postoperative infection rate was 16.6% in group A and 3.3% in group B (p ≤ 0.05). Furthermore, none of the patients in group B developed urosepsis or had a positive blood culture, while 3 patients in group A did (p<0.05).
conclusionThe use of disposable ureteroscopes is characterized by significantly lower post-operative complications and infection rates, while having comparable costs and SFRs vis à vis reusable ureteroscopes. Clinical Trial Registration Number: ISRCTN92289221.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.