ReviewCureus2024
Complications of Single-Use Flexible Ureteroscopy vs. Reusable Flexible Ureteroscopy: A Narrative Review.
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.
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
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Cost of reusable vs. single-use ureteroscopes in complex renal surgeries: a randomized cohort study.World journal of urology · 2025Trial
- Secondary calyceal neck atresia induced by postoperative hemorrhage and hyperinflammation after FURL in a solitary functional kidney with contralateral renal atrophy: a case report.Urology case reports · 2026Article
- Pre-laser intraoperative urine culture provides key microbiological information for postoperative infectious management after flexible ureteroscopy for renal stone disease: a prospective single-surgeon study.World journal of urology · 2026Article
- Review
- Article
- Optimizing infusion-suction diameter ratio (ISDR) in ureteroscopy: in vitro pressure and flow prediction and management.Urolithiasis · 2025Article
- Stone displacement with combined Sotn ureteroscopy and flexible ureteroscopy for lower calyx stones ⩽20 mm: a retrospective comparative study.Therapeutic advances in urologyArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.