ArticleBJUI compass2025
Green endoscopy: Economic and ecological evaluation of single-use versus reusable ureterorenoscopes.
Article in BJUI compass, 2025. 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.
- From fossil to bio-circular plastics: the environmental benefits of bio-attributed acrylonitrile butadiene styrene in single-use cystoscopes.BJU international · 2026Article
- [The environmentally friendly hospital : Perspectives and practical examples for urology].Urologie (Heidelberg, Germany) · 2026Review
- Green endoscopy: Economic and ecological evaluation of single-use versus reusable ureterorenoscopes.BJUI compass · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: The number of ureterorenoscopies in Germany is rising. Hospitals must operate economically while ensuring quality. Environmental assessment of medical procedures is gaining focus. This study aims to perform a comparative analysis of the economic and ecological aspects of single-use versus reusable ureterorenoscopes using real-world routine data, acknowledging their trade-offs between hygienic advantages, costs and environmental impacts. Materials and Methods: A total of 210 ureterorenoscopy cases (2022/2023) at the University Hospital of Würzburg were evaluated. A simulation assessed the impact of the OPS code 5-98b.0 on DRG (diagnosis-related groups) classification and reimbursement. Economic analysis included acquisition, repair and sterilization costs, while ecological assessment considered manufacturing, waste, reprocessing, transport and repair. Results: In 44.3% of cases, use of OPS code 5-98b.0 resulted in an upgraded DRG (L20B instead of L20C), yielding approximately €62 000 in additional revenue over 2 years. This was outweighed by roughly €147 000 in extra costs for single-use devices, assuming repair costs for reusable devices remained around €300 per case. Environmentally, single-use devices generated 42 kg more CO Conclusion: Single-use ureterorenoscopes are economically justifiable only when reusable devices incur frequent repair costs. Reusable scopes perform better ecologically due to lower CO
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.