ArticleInternational urology and nephrology2025
The comparison of efficacy and safety of reusable and disposable-flexible ureteroscopes: case-control matching results of multicentric RIRSearch study group.
Article in International urology and nephrology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
16 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeToday, disposable flexible ureteroscopes are increasingly used in retrograde intrarenal surgery (RIRS) as an alternative to reusable flexible ureteroscopes. The comparison of the safety and effectiveness of these two devices is still a matter of debate. This study evaluates the efficacy and safety of disposable-flexible ureteroscopes vs reusable flexible ureteroscopes in RIRS. MATERIALS AND
methodsThe study included 1165 RIRS cases, and the patients were divided into two groups. Group 1 consisted of cases with reusable RIRS, 838 in total, while Group 2 consisted of disposable RIRS cases, 327 in total. Due to significant differences, case-control matching was performed, and subsequently, there were 229 patients in both groups. The demographic and clinical data of patients, stone characteristics, surgical data, perioperative and postoperative complications, postoperative urinary tract infection rate, duration of hospitalization, and stone-free rates (SFR) were analyzed and compared.
resultsNo demographic differences were observed between the two groups after case-control matching. While operative time, SFR, and postoperative infection rates were similar between the groups (p > 0.05), fluoroscopy (p = 0.001) and hospitalization (p = 0.029) times were statistically significantly lower in the disposable ureteroscopy group. Perioperative and postoperative complications were also lower in this group (p = 0.018 and p = 0.001 respectively).
conclusionOur research indicates that single-use ureteroscopes are a strong alternative to reusable ureteroscopes, demonstrating similar efficacy and reduced complication rates in the treatment of upper urinary tract stones.
Indexed as
Identifiers
40358673What 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.