Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38413490›Full record

SynthesisUrolithiasis2024

Comparing outcomes of single-use vs reusable ureteroscopes: a systematic review and meta analysis.

Mikhael Belkovsky, Carlo Camargo Passerotti, Ronaldo Soares Maia, Everson Luiz de Almeida Artifon, José Pinhata Otoch, Jose Arnaldo Shiomi Da Cruz

Abstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Urolithiasis, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
2.5field-weighted citation impact, top 11% of its field
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

6 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Trial
  3. 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
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
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

6 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Mikhael BelkovskySurgical Technique & Experimental Surgery Department, Universidade de São Paulo, São Paulo, Brazil.
Carlo Camargo PasserottiUrology Department, Hospital Alemão Oswaldo Cruz, São Paulo, Brazil.
Ronaldo Soares MaiaSurgical Technique & Experimental Surgery Department, Universidade de São Paulo, São Paulo, Brazil.
Everson Luiz de Almeida ArtifonSurgical Technique & Experimental Surgery Department, Universidade de São Paulo, São Paulo, Brazil.
José Pinhata OtochSurgical Technique & Experimental Surgery Department, Universidade de São Paulo, São Paulo, Brazil.
Jose Arnaldo Shiomi Da CruzSurgical Technique & Experimental Surgery Department, Universidade de São Paulo, São Paulo, Brazil. arnaldoshiomi@yahoo.com.br.
Universidade de São Paulo · BRHospital Alemão Oswaldo Cruz · BRYahoo (Spain) · ES

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Flexible ureterolithotripsy is a frequent urological procedure, usually used to remove stones from the kidney and upper ureter. Reusable uretero-scopes were the standard tool for that procedure, but recent concerns related to sterility and maintenance and repair costs created the opportunity to develop new technologies. In 2016, the first single-use digital flexible ureteroscope was introduced. Since then, other single-use ureteroscopes were developed, and studies compared them with the reusable ureteroscopes with conflicting results. The purpose of this study is to describe the literature that compares the performance of single-use and reusable flexible ureteroscopes in retrograde intrarenal surgery for urinary stones. A Systematic Review was performed in October 2022 in accordance with the Cochrane Handbook and the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and MetaAnalyses (PRISMA). A search in MEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of Science, Google Scholar and LILACS retrieved 10,039 articles. After screening, 12 articles were selected for the Meta-Analysis. No differences were found in stone-free rate (OR 1.31, CI 95% [0.88, 1.97]), operative time (MD 0.12, CI 95% [-5.52, 5.76]), incidence of post-operative fever (OR 0.64, CI 95% [0.22, 1.89]), or incidence of post-operative urinary tract infection (OR 0.63 CI 95% [0.30, 1.32]). No differences were observed in the studied variables. Hence, the device choice should rely on the availability, cost analysis and surgeons' preference.

Indexed as

Equipment ReuseUreteroscopesUrinary CalculiUrolithiasisEquipment DesignHumansUreteroscopyDisposable ureteroscopeReusable ureteroscopeSingle-use ureteroscopeUreteroscopy

Identifiers

PMID38413490
OpenAlexW4392236373

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.