ArticleCentral European journal of urology2021
Comparison of pre- and post-surgical images of reusable and single use flexible ureteroscopes: a qualitative analysis.
Article in Central European journal of urology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Comparison of Surgical Outcomes between Single-Use and Reusable Flexible Ureteroscopes for Renal Stone Management: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2022Pooled it
- Microdamage analysis of single-use flexible ureteroscope immediately after lithotripsy use.Scientific reports · 2022Article
- Reused disposable ureteroscopes in retrograde intrarenal surgery: A new concept arises?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
4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionGiven the fragility of reusable ureterorenoscopes, many single use instruments have appeared on the market. Unfortunately, reuse of these scopes occurs in undeveloped countries in order to cut costs. This raises safety concerns for the patient.The aim of this article was to macroscopically evaluate the changes that single use flexible ureterorenoscopes (su-fURS) suffer after a retrograde intrarenal surgery (RIRS), and to compare them to reusable fURS. MATERIAL AND
methodsPre and post-operative images of the instruments used in 23 RIRS were obtained. All the cases had renal calculi of the inferior calix between 10-15 mm, and all of them were treated with Holmium laser. The ureterorenoscopes used were: Storz
resultsAfter su-fURS usage, significant damage was observed, especially on the distal tip. Deflection was not compromised. Reusable fURS did not sustain any damage after their use.
conclusionsfURS are delicate equipment, especially if they are of single use. The considerable damage sustained by single use scopes could mean that reuse of these instruments is dangerous and should be avoided.
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.