ReviewCanadian Urological Association journal = Journal de l'Association des urologues du Canada2025
Disposable flexible cystoscopes for removing double J catheter A budget impact analysis.
Review in Canadian Urological Association journal = Journal de l'Association des urologues du Canada, 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionWe conducted a budget impact analysis to evaluate the cost of removing double J catheters using single-use flexible digital cystoscopes compared to reusable cystoscopes at the CHU de Québec.
methodsThe UETMIS of CHU de Québec estimated average costs per intervention for both reusable and single-use flexible cystoscopes in the endoscopy room. Costs included purchase, repair, reprocessing, and sterilization for reusable cystoscopes based on data from 2017-2019. For single-use cystoscopes, the unit price and technical platform costs were considered. Annual costs were calculated using the average cost per procedure and the annual volume of double J catheter removals.
resultsThe average cost per intervention for reusable flexible cystoscopes was estimated at $148.55, while for single-use digital flexible cystoscopes, it was $293.38. For 385 annual double J catheter removals, the total cost would be $57 191.75 with reusable cystoscopes and $112 951.30 with single-use cystoscopes. This represents an additional cost of $144.83 per procedure or $55 760 annually when using single-use cystoscopes.
conclusionsThe use of single-use flexible digital cystoscopes for double J catheter removal at CHU de Québec would nearly double the cost per procedure compared to reusable cystoscopes. This cost difference is primarily due to the purchase price of single-use devices. While cystoscope breakage is infrequent, the potential for higher breakage risk during double J catheter removal could reduce the cost differential. Future implementation of patient-focused financing might alter the economic evaluation of single-use cystoscopes.
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.