ArticleCanadian Urological Association journal = Journal de l'Association des urologues du Canada2026
Micro-cost analysis of reusable compared to affordable single-use flexible ureteroscopes.
Article in Canadian Urological Association journal = Journal de l'Association des urologues du Canada, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Patient-centered ureteroscopy: Disposable scopes provide new options.Canadian Urological Association journal = Journal de l'Association des urologues du Canada · 2026Article
- Flexible ureterorenoscopy with holmium laser lithotripsy for ureteral calculi complicated by hydronephrosis.American journal of translational research · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionFlexible ureteroscopy is increasingly used for managing upper urinary tract pathologies, particularly kidney stones. With the emergence of affordable, single-use flexible ureteroscopes (fURS) as an alternative to reusable systems, the contemporary economic impact of each device is unclear. We performed a micro-cost evaluation comparing reusable fURS with two single-use models in a single-payer, Canadian healthcare system.
methodsThe costs of reusable fURS were divided into acquisition, repair, and reprocessing expenses. Per-procedure costs for reusable fURS were calculated by dividing the total annual costs by the average annual number of procedures, whereas single-use costs were based solely on device prices. The total number of repairs and specific reasons for repairs were also collected for the entire reusable fURS fleet from 2022-2024.
resultsAt our center, an average of 418 procedures were performed annually using reusable fURS, with total annual costs of $102 420.60, equaling to $245.03 per procedure. Reusable fURS become more cost-effective at volumes exceeding 130 cases compared to EU-Scope™ US 31E-12 and 83 cases compared to the Standard LithoVue™. Additionally, 65 repair events were recorded from 2022-2024, mainly due to distal tip leakage (77%). One repair was required for roughly 20 procedures (20.22:1).
conclusionsOur analysis indicates that reusable systems are more cost-efficient in high-volume settings, while single-use devices, especially the EU-Scope™, may be advantageous in lower-volume centers. In tertiary centers, the use of single-use fURS represents an excellent opportunity to preserve the durability of reusable fURS, particularly during complex procedures with a high risk of ureteroscope damage.
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.