ArticleWorld journal of urology2026
Single-use vs. reusable flexible ureteroscopes: what do our patients prefer?
Article in World journal of urology, 2026. 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
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeNumerous studies have compared reusable flexible ureteroscopes (RUFU) and single-use flexible ureteroscopes (SUFU). However, patients' opinions (PO) have not yet been assessed. This study aimed to evaluate PO regarding RUFU versus SUFU.
methodsA multicenter anonymous survey was conducted among patients consulting for urolithiasis in eight French centers between September 2024 and April 2025. Participants completed a nine-item questionnaire validated by an expert panel, assessing demographic and medical characteristics, ureteroscope preferences, environmental considerations (EC), scenario-based choices, and willingness to pay.
results186 patients were analyzed. Median age was 55years and 60.2% were male. Overall, 68.3% preferred SUFU, 14.0% preferred RUFU, and 17.7% had no preference. The main reason for choosing SUFU was the perceived risk of cross-contamination (67%), followed by EC and risk of cancellation (8.6% each). Preference for RUFU was mainly driven by EC (84.6%). Half of participants wished to be informed about the type of ureteroscope used, but majority preferred the final decision to be made by urologist. EC were considered important by 81.7% of participants. In the event of cancellation due to RUFU damage and unavailability of a SUFU, opinions were divided: 44.1% found this acceptable, 44.1% did not, and 11.8% had no opinion. Finally, 64.5% were willing to pay the price difference to obtain their preferred ureteroscope.
conclusionThis first study assessing PO on ureteroscope choice found a preference for SUFU, mainly due to the absence of cross-contamination risk despite EC. These findings support patient involvement in ureteroscope selection.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42700230What 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.