Trial reportWorld journal of urology2025
Cost of reusable vs. single-use ureteroscopes in complex renal surgeries: a randomized cohort study.
Trial report in World journal of urology, 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo conduct a cost-benefit analysis comparing the latest generation digital reusable ureteroscope (URS) with single-use scopes in endoscopic combined intrarenal surgery (ECIRS).
methodsA single-center, randomized cohort study was conducted during September 2021-June 2024, comparing the two types of URS. Patients undergoing ECIRS were randomized into either the URF-V3 or 7.5Fr flexible single-use URS group based on their physical and stone characteristics. Five newly acquired URF-V3 scopes were utilized. Percutaneous lithotomy was performed using a laser and LithoClast, whereas laser lithotripsy was conducted via URS. The primary endpoints included the cost per procedure and scope durability, whereas the secondary endpoints focused on surgical outcomes.
resultsOverall, 178 patients undergoing ECIRS (n = 89 per group) were analyzed. Four single-use scopes broke, and the URF-V3 scopes required six repairs. The cost per case was $840 for single-use scopes and $1,499 for URF-V3. The URF-V3 scope exhibited a median durability of 13.5 cases before requiring repair. A cost-comparable break-even point for URF-V3 over single-use scopes was achieved in 156 cases. The single-use group required higher total laser energy use (5.0 vs. 3.0 kJ), more frequent URS-assisted access (50.9% vs. 30.3%), and longer operative times (107 vs. 95 min), with no difference in stone-free rates between the groups. Multivariate analysis revealed that scope damage was associated with supine positioning (odds ratio [OR], 6.38), pre-stenting (OR, 7.12), and higher stone density (OR, 1.01).
conclusionSingle-use flexible ureteroscopes offer economic advantages in ECIRS, particularly in complex case settings, as the aggressive use of flexible URS increases the scope damage risk.
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.