ArticleIndian journal of urology : IJU : journal of the Urological Society of India
Reused disposable ureteroscopes in retrograde intrarenal surgery: A new concept arises?
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 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- A feasibility study on utility of a new digital disposable semirigid nephroscope for Suction mini-percutaneous nephrolithotripsy.World journal of urology · 2026Article
- Editorial comment: The reusability conundrum: Considerations for reusing surgical disposables in research setting.Indian journal of urology : IJU : journal of the Urological Society of IndiaArticle
- 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Retrograde intrarenal surgery (RIRS) for renal lithiasis is widely used, with single-use ureteroscopes offering an excellent option. However, their high cost poses a challenge, prompting consideration of reusing disposable instruments. This study aims to compare stone-free rates (SFR) and complications between reprocessed disposable ureteroscopes and new ones in a multicenter cohort. Methods: This prospective, observational, multicenter study included patients who underwent RIRS between May 2022 and May 2023 at three centers in Argentina. Patients were divided into two groups: Group 1 used a brand new disposable ureteroscope and Group 2 used a reprocessed disposable ureteroscope. Stone size, location, stone-free rate, postoperative complications, and subjective evaluations of deflection and vision were analyzed. Results: Seventy-seven patients were included: 21 in Group 1 and 56 in Group 2. The average stone size was 10.9 mm in Group 1 and 8.6 mm in Group 2 ( Conclusions: Despite the larger stone size in Group 1, the stone-free rate and postoperative infection rates were similar between both groups. Reprocessing disposable instruments does not appear to affect the effectiveness or infection rate of RIRS.
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.