ArticleIndian journal of urology : IJU : journal of the Urological Society of India
The cost-effectiveness of reusable flexible ureteroscopes: An institutional audit.
Article in Indian journal of urology : IJU : journal of the Urological Society of India. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- What's inside.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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: A flexible ureteroscope (FU) is an important tool in the urologist's armamentarium. This study aims to check the durability and cost-effectiveness of conventional FU. Methods: The institution registry of damaged FU over the last 7 years was reviewed. A total of 17 flexible scopes were used. The data of 13 scopes (11 Storz fiberoptic and 2 Seesheen digital) are included in this study. A total of 1905 cases were performed. The cost of scope, duration of use, number of cases done by each scope, and nature of damage were evaluated. We compared the cost-effectiveness of conventional scopes with published costs on disposable scopes. Results: The mean number of cases done by fiberoptic scope was 159 (range 25-334). The total cases done by 2 digital scopes were 135 and 25. The mean life of fiberoptic and digital scopes was 17 (range 4-31) and 8 months, respectively. The mean cost of fiberoptic scope was Indian Rupee (INR) 338,951 ($4082.7221) and INR 525,000 ($6323.7138) for digital scope. The cost per case for reusable scope is calculated by dividing the mean cost of FU by the mean number of cases done. The reprocessing cost of INR 527 was then added. Thus, the average cost per procedure for fiberoptic and digital FU was INR 2658.76 and INR 7089.50, respectively. We compared this cost with a projected cost of disposable FUbased on today's market data, which ranged from INR 60,000 to 107,427. Conclusions: The reusable scopes are durable, cost-effective, and an excellent option for high case-load institutions.
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.