ReviewEuropean urology open science2022
Repair Rate and Associated Costs of Reusable Flexible Ureteroscopes: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.
Review in European urology open science, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 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
9 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 21 citations in OpenAlex.
- Suction-assisted ureteroscopy compared with traditional ureteroscopy for renal stones ≤ 2 cm: a systematic review, Bayesian network meta-analysis and meta-regression.World journal of urology · 2026Pooled it
- Cost of reusable vs. single-use ureteroscopes in complex renal surgeries: a randomized cohort study.World journal of urology · 2025Trial
- Institutional billed-charge patterns and resource utilization in flexible navigable aspiration sheath-assisted and no-access-sheath ureteroscopy: a single-center descriptive cohort study.International urology and nephrology · 2026Article
- Factors associated with flexible cystoscope longevity: an analysis of supplier and health service datasets.BJU international · 2026Article
- Durability of reusable instruments and hidden costs in robotic-assisted surgery: a retrospective multidisciplinary analysis.Surgical endoscopy · 2026Article
- Micro-cost analysis of reusable compared to affordable single-use flexible ureteroscopes.Canadian Urological Association journal = Journal de l'Association des urologues du Canada · 2026Article
- Article
- Single-use flexible ureteroscopes: practice patterns, attitudes, and preferences for next-generation concepts.Frontiers in surgery · 2024Article
- Single use flexible ureteroscopes: Current status and future directions.BJUI compass · 2023Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 6 institutions in 6 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
contextThe refined mechanics of a flexible ureteroscope (fURS) are vulnerable to damage. Sending the fURS for repair is costly and has driven interest toward estimating the resources used for fURS repairs.
objectiveTo systematically review available literature and to estimate the total weighted repair rate of an fURS and the average repair cost per ureteroscopy. EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: A systematic review was conducted by searching the MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library databases. The average costs of all repairs identified in the included studies were extracted. A random-effect model was used to calculate the pooled total fURS repair rate. The total weighted repair rate and average cost per repair were multiplied to provide an average cost of repair per ureteroscopy procedure. EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS: We identified 18 studies that fulfilled the inclusion criteria, which included 411 repairs from 5900 investigated ureteroscopy procedures. The calculated weighted repair rate was 6.5% ± 0.745% (95% confidence interval: 5.0-7.9%; I
conclusionsThis is the first meta-analysis to estimate the repair rate of the fURS used for ureteroscopy. Our analysis demonstrates a repair rate of 6.5%, equivalent to 15 ureteroscopy procedures between fURS repairs and a repair cost of 441 USD per procedure. Ureteroscopy practices should consider fURS breakage rates and repair costs to optimize the use of reusable versus disposable devices. PATIENT SUMMARY: We reviewed available literature investigating the repair rate of a flexible ureteroscope (fURS). We found that fURSs are sent for repair after every 15 ureteroscopy procedures, corresponding to 441 USD per procedure in repair cost.
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.