164 277

Cited 6 times in

Comparison of Surgical Outcomes between Single-Use and Reusable Flexible Ureteroscopes for Renal Stone Management: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Authors
 Dae Young Jun  ;  Kang Su Cho  ;  Jae Yong Jeong  ;  Young Joon Moon  ;  Dong Hyuk Kang  ;  Hae Do Jung  ;  Joo Yong Lee 
Citation
 MEDICINA-LITHUANIA, Vol.58(10) : 1388, 2022-10 
Journal Title
MEDICINA-LITHUANIA
ISSN
 1010-660X 
Issue Date
2022-10
MeSH
Equipment Design ; Humans ; Kidney Calculi* / surgery ; Treatment Outcome ; Ureteroscopes ; Ureteroscopy ; Urinary Calculi*
Keywords
disposable equipment ; kidney calculi ; meta-analysis ; systematic review ; ureteroscopes
Abstract
Background and Objectives: Disposable flexible ureteroscopes have been widely used because of their cost-effectiveness and higher sterility potential compared with reusable flexible ureteroscopes. This study aimed to compare the surgical outcomes and complication rates in patients who undergo reusable or disposable flexible ureteroscopic stone surgeries (fURS) for urinary stone disease. Materials and Methods: A systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted under the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guideline. This systematic review was registered with PROSPERO (CRD42022331291). Clinical trials comparing reusable and disposable fURS for stone disease were found from PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, and the Web of Science up to March 2022. Participants were patients with upper urinary tract stones; the interventions were reusable or disposable fURS. Outcomes, including stone-free rate, operation time, length of hospital stay, and complication rate, were compared for analysis. Results: Overall, 111 studies were identified, but after removing duplicate studies, 75 studies remained. Thirty-two of these studies were excluded. Of the 43 screened studies, 11 met the eligibility criteria. There was no difference in the stone-free rate (SFR) between disposable and reusable fURS (p = 0.14; OR = 1.36; 95% CI, 0.9 to 2.04). For operation time, no difference was identified between reusable and disposable fURS groups (p = 0.12; MD = -5.31; 95% CI, -12.08 to 1.46). For hospital stay, there was also no difference between the two groups (p = 0.61; MD = -0.03; 95% CI, -0.17 to 0.10). There was no significant difference in complication rate between the two groups (p = 0.85; OR = 0.95; 95% CI, 0.56 to 1.61). Conclusions: There were no differences in the SFR, operation time, length of hospital stay, and complication rate between reusable and disposable fURS. Disposable fURS may be a comparable alternative to reusable fURS.
Files in This Item:
T202204665.pdf Download
DOI
10.3390/medicina58101388
Appears in Collections:
1. College of Medicine (의과대학) > Dept. of Urology (비뇨의학교실) > 1. Journal Papers
Yonsei Authors
Moon, Young Joon(문영준)
Lee, Joo Yong(이주용) ORCID logo https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3470-1767
Jeong, Jae Yong(정재용)
Cho, Kang Su(조강수) ORCID logo https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3500-8833
URI
https://ir.ymlib.yonsei.ac.kr/handle/22282913/192139
사서에게 알리기
  feedback

qrcode

Items in DSpace are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.

Browse

Links