Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34424373›Full record

ArticleWorld journal of urology2022

Can the introduction of single-use flexible ureteroscopes increase the longevity of reusable flexible ureteroscopes at a high volume centre?

Eugenio Ventimiglia, Niamh Smyth, Steeve Doizi, Alvaro Jiménez Godínez, Yazeed Barghouthy, Mariela Alejandra Corrales Acosta, Hatem Kamkoum, Bhaskar Somani, Olivier Traxer

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in World journal of urology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

10 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Micro-cost analysis of reusable compared to affordable single-use flexible ureteroscopes.Canadian Urological Association journal = Journal de l'Association des urologues du Canada · 2026
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors.

Eugenio Ventimiglia *GRC n°20, Groupe de Recherche Clinique sur la Lithiase Urinaire, Hôpital Tenon, Sorbonne Université, 75020, Paris, France.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3654-1629
Niamh Smyth *University Hospital Monklands, Monkscourt Avenue, Airdrie, ML60JS, UK.
Steeve DoiziGRC n°20, Groupe de Recherche Clinique sur la Lithiase Urinaire, Hôpital Tenon, Sorbonne Université, 75020, Paris, France.
Alvaro Jiménez GodínezDepartment of Surgery, University of Guadalajara, Guadalajara, Jalisco, Mexico.
Yazeed BarghouthyGRC n°20, Groupe de Recherche Clinique sur la Lithiase Urinaire, Hôpital Tenon, Sorbonne Université, 75020, Paris, France.
Mariela Alejandra Corrales AcostaGRC n°20, Groupe de Recherche Clinique sur la Lithiase Urinaire, Hôpital Tenon, Sorbonne Université, 75020, Paris, France.
Hatem KamkoumGRC n°20, Groupe de Recherche Clinique sur la Lithiase Urinaire, Hôpital Tenon, Sorbonne Université, 75020, Paris, France.
Bhaskar SomaniUniversity Hospital Southampton NHS Trust, Southampton, UK.
Olivier TraxerGRC n°20, Groupe de Recherche Clinique sur la Lithiase Urinaire, Hôpital Tenon, Sorbonne Université, 75020, Paris, France. olivier.traxer@aphp.fr.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesTo assess whether the introduction of single use flexibles ureteroscopes (su-fURS) at our high-volume centre had an advantageous impact on the turn-over and breakage rates of reusable fURS (re-fURS).

methodsWe analysed re-fURS number of usages and breakages at our centre between February 2015 and December 2018. We recorded the number of usages for analysed scope between the first usage until a breakage requiring reconditioning. Usage count was restarted following each reconditioning episode. Since su-fURS (Lithovue, Boston Scientific, USA) were introduced at our center in September 2016, we had the chance to compare different re-fURS life cycles according to both su-fURS availability and usage intensity (i.e., number of su-fURS used during each re-fURS life cycle). We then explored the relationship between su-fURS usage intensity and reusable scope survival (i.e., number of utilizations before any breakage requiring reconditioning) using locally weighted scatterplot smoothing (LOWESS) approach.

resultsFive different re-fURSs were employed at our centre, for a total of 1820 usages and 40 breakages requiring reconditioning. The overall mean (SD) number of usages before breaking was 40 (22). After su-fURS introduction, mean (SD) re-fURS number of usages increased from 35 (22) to 49 (20), (+ 40%, p = 0.02). The relationship between su-fURS usage intensity and reusable scopes survival showed a linear survival increase after 10 or more su-fURS scopes were used per life cycle.

conclusionsThe life cycle of re-fURS increased by 40% after the introduction of su-fURS. Ten or more used su-fURS per life cycle were associated with increased re-fURS survival.

Indexed as

Disposable EquipmentEquipment ReuseUreteroscopesHospitals, High-VolumeHumansRetrospective StudiesDisposableFlexible ureteroscopyRepairReusableSingle use

Identifiers

PMID34424373

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.