Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39845241›Full record

ReviewCureus2024

Complications of Single-Use Flexible Ureteroscopy vs. Reusable Flexible Ureteroscopy: A Narrative Review.

Ana Maria Punga, Cosmin Ene, Catalin-Andrei Bulai, Dragos A Georgescu, Razvan Multescu, Dragos Eugen Georgescu, Bogdan Geavlete, Petrisor Geavlete

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Cureus, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

7 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. 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

8 authors.

Ana Maria PungaDepartment of Urology, Carol Davila University of Medicine and Pharmacy, Bucharest, ROU.
Cosmin EneDepartment of Urology, Carol Davila University of Medicine and Pharmacy, Bucharest, ROU.
Catalin-Andrei BulaiDepartment of Urology, Carol Davila University of Medicine and Pharmacy, Bucharest, ROU.
Dragos A GeorgescuDepartment of Urology, Carol Davila University of Medicine and Pharmacy, Bucharest, ROU.
Razvan MultescuDepartment of Urology, Carol Davila University of Medicine and Pharmacy, Bucharest, ROU.
Dragos Eugen GeorgescuDepartment of General Surgery, Carol Davila University of Medicine and Pharmacy, Bucharest, ROU.
Bogdan GeavleteDepartment of Urology, Carol Davila University of Medicine and Pharmacy, Bucharest, ROU.
Petrisor GeavleteDepartment of Urology, Carol Davila University of Medicine and Pharmacy, Bucharest, ROU.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Urolithiasis, or kidney stones, is a painful condition that is becoming increasingly common worldwide. For many, the solution lies in a minimally invasive procedure called flexible ureteroscopy (fURS). This technique involves inserting a tiny, flexible scope into the urinary tract to break up and remove stones. Reusable fURS scopes have traditionally been the norm. However, concerns about infection control and instrument durability have led to the development of single-use scopes. While both methods offer effective treatment, the question remains: which one is safer and more efficient? To answer this, we conducted a comprehensive review of the available research. We analyzed 37 studies that compared single-use and reusable fURS complication rates. While both methods carry risks, such as bleeding, infection, and ureteral injury, the overall complication rates were found to be similar. As technology continues to advance, fURS is becoming even safer and more effective. However, there is still a need for standardized reporting and further research to better understand the potential risks and benefits of both single-use and reusable scopes. Ultimately, the choice between the two will depend on various factors, including patient factors, surgeon preference, and healthcare resource availability.

Indexed as

flexible ureteroscopyprocedural complicationsreusablesingle-use flexible ureteroscopeurolithiasis

Identifiers

PMID39845241
PMCPMC11753191

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.