ArticleBMC urology2024
Workflow efficiencies for flexible cystoscopy: comparing single-use vs reusable cystoscopes.
Article in BMC urology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- Reusable vs single-use flexible cystoscopes in outpatient urology: a real-world micro-costing and user evaluation.BMC urology · 2026Article
- Reusable vs. single use cystoscope: economic & environmental assessment.World journal of urology · 2025Article
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 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundFlexible cystoscopy is a common procedure to diagnose and treat lower urinary tract conditions. Single-use cystoscopes have been introduced to eliminate time-consuming reprocessing and costly repairs. We compared the hands-on labor time differences between flexible reusable cystoscopes versus Ambu's aScope™ 4 Cysto (aS4C) at a large urology Ambulatory Surgery Center (ASC).
methodsReusable and single-use cystoscopy procedures were shadowed for timestamp collection for setup and breakdown. A subset of reusable cystoscopes were followed through the reprocessing cycle. T-tests were calculated to measure the significance between groups.
resultsThe average hands-on time necessary for reusable cystoscope preparation, breakdown, and pre-cleaning was 4'53″. Of this, 2'53″ were required for preparation, while 2'0″ were required for breakdown and pre-cleaning. The average hands-on time for reprocessing for reusable was 7'1" per cycle. The total time for single-use scopes was 2'22″. Of this, 1'36″ was needed for single-use preparation, and 45 s for breakdown. Compared to reusable cystoscopes, single-use cystoscopes significantly reduced pre and post-procedure hands-on labor time by 2'31", or 48%. When including reprocessing, total hands-on time was 80% greater for reusable than single-use cystoscopes.
conclusionSingle-use cystoscopes significantly reduced hands-on labor time compared to reusable cystoscopes. On average, the facility saw a reduction of 2'31″ per cystoscope for each procedure. This translates to 20 additional minutes gained per day, based on an 8 procedures per day. Utilizing single-use cystoscopes enabled the facility to reduce patient wait times, decrease turnaround times, and free up staff time.
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.